2013 Farmers Handbook Food and Ag Politics India ICCFM PDF

Handbook on Some
Political Issues surrounding

Food and Agriculture in India
Indian Coordination Committee

of Farmers Movements
Contents
Sl. Name Page
No. No.
1 What is Food Sovereignty by La Via Campesina 1

2 Farmers’ Income Guarantee Act 3
3 Free Trade and Indian Agriculture with 12
contributions
4 The great land grab: India's war on farmers 25
5 Consequences (of land grab) for agriculture 30

and food security
6 Position of the Indian Coordination 34
Committee of Farmers Movements on the
Land Acquisition Bill
7 Power sector issues and agriculture 40
8 Understanding Livestock in context of Food 46

Sovereignty: Challenges and Action
9 Background note India's Climate Policy for 59

Farmers
10 Restoring Diverse Seeds in the Hands of 69
Farmers – Importance of Seed Sovereignty
11 Genetically Modified Crops and Foods in India 75
12 Seeds Bill- Main Issues from Farmer's
Perspective 90
13 Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India
Bill (BRAI BILL) 94
14 What is La Via Campesina? 97
Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements 1
1. What is Food Sovereignty by

La Via Campesina
Small and medium farmers, fishworkers, pastoralists and rural people

around the world are fighting for a model of development called “food
sovereignty”.
In short, Food sovereignty is the right of a nation to decide its own food
and agriculture policies by giving full priority to its local farmers, local
culture, and the environment. This would imply that local farmers, not
corporations, have the first right to markets and to everything needed to
produce food – seeds, water, land, fair price and income. They should
have the right to make the decisions regarding how all these resources are
managed and controlled and also right to self determination. They should
have protection from the global market prices and products. Consumers
should have access to locally produced healthy and nutritious food, which
should be promoted, and not industrial junk food like KFC or Mc Donald’s
which is dangerous for peoples health and which utilizes scarce resources
to produce unhealthy food.
Below you will find the seven principles of food sovereignty of the global
farmers movement – La Via Campesina (LVC). LVC was first to come
up with the term food sovereignty which has now turned into a global
movement.
What is food sovereignty

1. Food A basic Human Right: Everyone must have access to safe,
nutritious and culturally appropriate food in sufficient quantity and quality
to sustain a healthy life with full human dignity. Each nation should declare
that access to food is a constitutional right and guarantee the development
of the primary sector to ensure the concrete realization of this fundamental
right.
2. Agrarian Reform: A genuine agrarian reform is necessary which gives

landless and farming people –especially women– ownership and control of
2 Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements
the land they work and returns territories to indigenous peoples. The right
to land must be free of discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, race,
social class or ideology;the land belongs to those who work it.
3. Protecting Natural Resources: Food sovereignty entails the sustainable
care and use of natural resources, especially land, water, and seeds and
livestock breeds.The people who work the land must have the right to
practice sustainable management of natural resources and to conserve
biodiversity free of restrictive intellectual property rights. This can only be
done from a sound economic basis with security of tenure, healthy soils
and reduced use of agrochemicals.
4. Reorganising Food Trade: Food is first and foremost a source of
nutrition and only secondarily an item of trade. National agricultural
policies must prioritize production for domestic consumption and food self-
sufficiency. Food imports must not displace local production nor depress
prices.
5. Ending the Globalisation of Hunger: Food Sovereignty is undermined
by multilateral institutions and by speculative capital. The growing control
of multinational corporations over agricultural policies has been facilitated
by the economic policies of multilateral organizations such as the WTO,
World Bank and the IMF. Regulation and taxation of speculative capital
and a strictly enforced Code of Conduct for TNCs is therefore needed.
6. Social Peace: Everyone has the right to be free from violence. Food must
not be used as a weapon. Increasing levels of poverty and marginalization
in the countryside, along with the growing oppression of ethnic minorities
and indigenous populations, aggravate situations of injustice and
hopelessness. The ongoing displacement, forced urbanisation, repression
and increasing incidence of racism of smallholder farmers cannot be
tolerated.
7. Democratic Control: Smallholder farmers must have direct input into
formulating agricultural policies at all levels. The United Nations and
related organisations will have to undergo a process of democratization to
enable this to become a reality. Everyone has the right to honest, accurate
information and open and democratic decision-making. These rights form
the basis of good governance,accountability and equal participation in
economic, political and social life, free from all forms of discrimination.
Rural women, in particular, must be granted direct and active decision
making on food and rural issues.
2. Farmers’ Income Guarantee Act
by: Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The government policies and schemes on agriculture have not improved
the economic status of farmers; hence ‘vibrant village economies’ have
remained only in dreams. The increasing impoverishment of farming has
had a cascading effect on increase in the numbers of rural poor, lower
incomes to agriculture workers, food and nutritional insecurity, and distress
migration to join the ranks of urban poor. Various government policies
including the agricultural pricing and food security policies have neglected
the fact that a large population in this country is directly involved in food
production; pricing policies that prioritize industry and consumers have led
to serious problems for the producers. Policies targeting the poor as mere
consumers to be ensured cheap goods undermine the livelihoods of rural
producers who ironically constitute a majority of the nation’s poor. The other
side of the coin is that costs of cultivation have been growing enormously,
and the incentives and support systems that are biased towards high-input
agriculture have compelled small and marginal farmers to adopt high risks
and get mired in debt and distress – leading them to the extreme step of
committing suicide much more often than a civilized humanist society can
accept (more than 250,000 in 16 years).
1. Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) is a network of more than 400 organizations
across India, including farmer unions, agricultural labourers unions, NGOs, scientists and consumer
groups, who came together as part of the nation-wide Kisan Swaraj Yatra that traveled through 20 states
during Oct-Dec 2010. Contact: Kavitha Kuruganti: 09393001550, kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com, Kiran
Vissa: 09701705743, kiranvissa@gmail.com; Dr. Ramanjaneyulu: 09000699702, ramoo.csa@gmail.com
The National Farmers’ Commission stated, “Progress in agriculture should

be measured by the growth rate in the net income of farm families... moving
away from an attitude which measures progress only in millions of tonnes
of food-grains and other farm commodities.” 2
Governments spend thousands of crores every year in the name of

farmers and talk highly of their support, but there is no clear assessment
of how much that has helped the incomes of farmers. As per the National
Commission for Enterprises in Unorganized Sector report (NCEUS, 2007),
real incomes of farmers have stagnated, with the average being Rs.1650
per family per month. The study also shows that the average family
expense in the villages is Rs.2150 per month; even at such below-poverty-
level consumption, the average family still spends more than it earns, thus
getting into debt. (See Annexure 1)
The time has come for this to change. The government should be directly
accountable for improving the net incomes of farming households.
The government’s performance should be measured in terms of net
household income, not the production or the amount of funds spent. When
farmers of India are ensured a dignified livelihood from agriculture, they will
be at the forefront of raising production levels!
We must demand for a Farmers’ Income Guarantee Act which assures

all farming households a dignified living income to meet the basic
living expenses.
2. IMPLEMENTING FARMERS’ INCOME GUARANTEE

The measures required for implementing the farmers’ income guarantee
are below.
2.1 Farmers Income Commission: Ensuring living incomes for all

cultivators
• A statutory permanent Farmers Income Commission should be

established with the mandate of ensuring a minimum living income
level for all farming households – including tenants, sharecroppers
and agricultural workers.
2. http://krishakayog.gov.in/4threport.pdf
• Income assessment of farming households should be conducted

every year. Currently, an extensive national Household Expenditure
Survey is done in India every five years, and the numbers are
updated every year through a thin survey with a smaller number of
households. On the same lines, a Household Income Survey should
be conducted for farmer households – with an extensive survey
every five years updated by a thin survey every year. These income
figures should be analyzed and organized based on region, land-
holding, crops grown and allied occupations.
• A minimum living income for rural farming households is mandated
by the Commission, which covers basic living costs that include
food, shelter, health and education. This is indexed to inflation and
updated every year.
• The Commission is required to come up with concrete
recommendations to ensure that the net incomes determined by the
Income Assessment meet the benchmark of minimum living income.
• The basket of measures would include MSPs, procurement, Price
Compensation, marketing and credit support, crop insurance,
disaster compensation and producer bonus for rainfed and
ecological farmers; these are described in the next sub-sections.
If these measures still do not result in the minimum living income,
then a direct income payment should be made especially to small
farmers.
• In essence, the Farmers Income Commission would provide the
accountability for the thousands of crores spent in the name of
farmers. It would ensure that all the farmer support measures of the
government converge to produce the desired level of incomes for
farming households.
2.2 Not only Price Support but also Price Compensation
• So far, we have a Price Support mechanism for farmers in our country

based on MSPs and government procurement – but it is highly
inadequate. The MSPs are often too low, the procurement happens
only in a few crops, and even that is not timely and efficient. Not
only should we strengthen the price support mechanism but farmers
need to be given Price Compensation for food crops when the actual
price realized by farmers is less than the Fair Price Target. This is
essential to ensure economic justice for farmers.
• Strengthen MSP and Procurement mechanism:
o The method of determining Cost of Cultivation should be
revamped to reflect full costs.
o Minimum Support Price (MSP) should be 50% above the real
cost of cultivation, as recommended by National Farmers
Commission.
o State-wise MSP: MSP for each state should be determined
based on that state’s Cost of Cultivation; this should be declared
either by the central CACP or by establishing state-level CACP.
The state governments should be responsible for implementing
the respective MSPs.
o MSPs should be announced for all crops well before the season
begins so that the farmers can make an informed decision
about the crops.
o Timely, efficient procurement should happen in all crops, as
market intervention to ensure MSP. Procurement should be
directly from farmers. Adequate Price Stabilization Fund should
be established.
• Price Compensation for food crops:
In spite of the promised Price Support, governments often intervene to
keep prices low for consumers and industry, and this is often used as a
reason not to provide adequate MSP. As a principle, we demand that the
burden for providing affordable food for the citizens of India should
not fall upon the farmers – it should be borne by the nation.
To operationalize this principle, a Price Compensation system should be

established for all the food crops which are supported by CACP. The first
step is that for each crop, a Fair Price Target is declared which ensures
at least 50% returns over the true cost of cultivation, and covers the rising
living costs. The second step is to determine the Average Harvest Price
for each crop for each district or taluq (whichever administrative unit is
chosen).
If Average Harvest Price is less than Fair Price Target, the difference should
be paid by the government to all the cultivators in that district or taluq. The
actual payment to the cultivator is determined based on the number of
acres cultivated and the average yield for that crop in the particular district/
taluq. This payment should be made to the actual cultivators – including
tenant farmers and sharecroppers.
The Price Compensation mechanism has two clear advantages: (a) It

ensures fair returns to producers even when market prices are low (or
deliberately kept low); (b) It supports all food crops and not just the ones
that are procured by FCI or NAFED, so it addresses the bias towards
paddy and wheat which disadvantages rainfed agriculture.
2.3 Reduce Cost of Cultivation
• Promote low-cost sustainable agriculture: Sustainable models with

low input costs and reliance on locally available resources should be
promoted, with a decisive shift away from the high input-intensive,
high-risk model of agriculture which has pushed the majority of small
farmers into crisis. A pro-active programmatic approach should be
taken, including extension and support systems. Fertilizer subsidy
should be recast to support farmers who make their own natural
fertilizers.
• Labor wage support for all agricultural operations: Today we are in
an ironic situation where farmers are complaining about shortage of
agricultural workers and rising wages, while agriculture workers are
unable to get adequate work round the year (which is the reason
for NREGA). The government should provide input subsidy towards
labor wages (up to 40 days/acre crop season) which is paid to the
workers on the lines of NREGS after the completion of work is
certified by a joint team of farmers and workers. This is in addition
to the 100-day guarantee of work under NREGS – so it ensures
additional work-days for the workers and availability of labor for
farmers.
2.4 Institutional and Infrastructure support for Storage, Marketing,

Procurement and Processing
• In order to strengthen the farmers’ position to negotiate the

market better, it is imperative to strengthen their holding capacity
so that they can sell at an advantageous time instead of the most
disadvantageous time as it happens now.
• Sufficient storage facilities including godowns and cold storage
should be built with government support at village and cluster level.
Procurement at village-level should be implemented.
• Adequate institutional credit should be provided which covers 100%
of farmers who require credit. Warehouse receipts scheme should
be implemented effectively.
• Primary and secondary processing facilities should be developed at
village and cluster level.
• Farmer institutions should be developed to take advantage of the
collective strength for storage, processing and marketing.
• Social Security for all agricultural families: A strong social security
system should be put in place to provide health-care, pensions
and accident/life insurance for all agricultural workers and farmers
including tenant farmers.
2.5 Disaster Relief and Mitigation, and Crop Insurance
Loss of crop and livestock due to natural disasters such as cyclones,

floods and drought is a major cause for pushing farmers into debt and
distress from which they take years to recover. Utmost attention should be
paid to ensure that farmers are protected during disasters. The Calamity
Relief Fund should be allocated sufficient funds and used to issue timely
and adequate compensation for crop and livestock losses, and also for
protection of crop and livestock during impending or ongoing disaster
situation. The compensation for crop loss should be at least Rs.10,000 per
acre as recommended by the Hooda Committee. Proper crop insurance
mechanism to should be made available to all farmers irrespective of
whether they access the formal credit system.
2.6 Producer Bonus for Rainfed and Ecological Agriculture
Though rainfed regions constitute more than 60% of the cultivated area
in India, only a very small part of the support provided to agriculture has
gone to benefit the rainfed farmers. One glaring example is that most of the
expenditures in irrigation have gone to the canal-irrigated regions whereas
the rainfed farmers either cultivate unirrigated lands or invest large
amounts on wells and tubewells. Another example is the much smaller
amount of fertilizer use by rainfed farmers, while the biggest share of
fertilizer subsidy goes to the irrigated regions. Similarly, farmers practicing
ecologically sustainable agriculture using their own local resources perform
extremely useful service in terms of conserving precious soil fertility and
water resources and preventing the poisoning of resources through
chemicals – but they receive very little of the support systems provided by
the government.
A Producer Bonus should be given to farmers practicing rainfed and

ecological agriculture.
3. CONCLUSION
The Farmers Income Guarantee is the need of the hour for the farmers –
so that there is accountability from the government to the farmers for the
thousands of crores spent in their name. Since 60% of India’s people are
dependent on agriculture and provide most essential service to the nation
in terms of food security and raw material for industry, they deserve to be
ensured fair incomes.
Farmers Income Guarantee is not a favor to India’s farming community,

it is their Right!
Annexure 1: Economic Situation of Farmers
Annexure 1: Economic Situation of Farmers

Land holding Category Total Income Expenditure Percent of total
(acres) (Rs/month) (Rs/month) farmers
<0.01 Landless 1380 2297 36 %
0.01-1.0 Sub marginal 1633 2390
1.0-2.5 Marginal 1809 2672 31 %
2.5-5.0 Small 2493 3148 17 %
5.0-10.0 Semi-medium 3589 3685 10 %
10.0-25.0 Medium 5681 4626 6%
>25.0 Large 9667 6418
Total 2115 2770 All farmers
Source: Report “On Conditions Of Work And Promotion Of Livelihoods In The Unorganised Sector”
Arjun Sen Gupta Commission, 2007
Source: Report “On Conditions Of Work And Promotion Of Livelihoods In

The Unorganised Sector” Arjun Sen Gupta Commission, 2007
Annexure 2: Inadequate Minimum Support Prices
Annexure 2: Inadequate Minimum Support Prices
Cost of cultivation data from CACP shows that the MSPs have not even covered Cost C2 in most of
the states for all major crops
Name of the Crop States where the C2 cost projection by CACP for 2005-06 were not
covered by MSP of 2004-05
Paddy A.P, Assam, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, M.P, Tamil Nadu & West Bengal
Jowar A.P, Karnataka, M.P, Maharashtra & Tamil Nadu
Bajra Gujarat, Haryana, U.P, Maharashtra
Maize A.P, H.P, Karnataka, M.P, Rajasthan & U.P
Ragi Karnataka, Tamil Nadu
Tur [Arhar] A.P, Gujarat, Karnataka & Orissa
Moong A.P, Maharashatra, Orissa & Rajasthan
Urd M.P, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan & Tamil Nadu
Gram Haryana, Rajasthan
Barley Rajasthan
Source: http://dacnet.nic.in/eands/costofcultivation.pdf
This situation is continuing for last several years. This is not only the case of paddy but for other crops as
well. This is leading to lowering of agriculture prices to farmers to a greater extent.
This situation is continuing for last several years. This is not only the
case of paddy but for other crops as well. This is leading to lowering of
agriculture prices to farmers to a greater extent.
3. Free Trade and Indian Agriculture

with contributions
by Ranja Sengupta
India’s agriculture sector is large and though its share in GDP is falling and
currently stands at 19.93% (Current Prices, 2011-12, Advance Estimates)
or 13.9% at constant prices, the sector supports about 70% of the India’s
population. Structurally, there are numerous small, poor producers with
small holdings, low capital, and low education levels. 83695 thousand
marginal farmers (those own less than 1 hectare of land) who represent
65% of farmers in India, own only 20% of total land, with an average holding
size of 0.38 hectares 1. Only 46.13% of the area under such holdings
receives any form of irrigation 2. This makes production difficult but makes
shifting gainfully out of the sector, say to formal sector jobs, even more
difficult. Agriculture is also a gender sensitive sector where 75.38% of
all women workforce are engaged. Apart from the fact that agriculture is
crucial for the production of food for the economy overall, it also works to
ensure food security for the working agricultural population as most small
farmers eat part of what they produce, producers are consumers. Some
may shift but most need livelihood in agriculture to ensure access to food
for themselves.
However in spite of its crucial importance, relative neglect of agriculture

in policy terms has been apparent. Public investment in infrastructure
including in irrigation, marketing, storage, transport; extension services
has also lagged behind. Agriculture’s share in the economy’s overall
gross capital formation declined from 8.3% in 2008-9 to 7.2% in 2010-
11. The institutional credit system, technology development and extension
services are still weak and unlike in developed countries, Indian farmers
1. Data refers to 2005-06, Indian Agricultural Census, Government of India.
2. Data refers to 2000-01, Indian Agricultural Census, Government of India.
enjoy very little direct subsidy on agriculture. There are 5 estimates of

rural poverty which varies between 28% and 87% depending largely on
the poverty line. The current official estimates put it at 41.8% for 2004-05
(using Tendulkar Methodology, 2011). Though rural poverty is reported to
have fallen according to the recent Planning Commission estimates, there
has been a lot of debate in India about the measurement and comparability
of different estimates.
A. Dabbling in International Trade: Livelihood & Food

Security Concerns
India’s domestic market is largely catered to by its own farmers but India
does export and import some agricultural products. However India’s
engagement international trade in agricultural products has been relatively
limited until now. India’s agricultural imports stood at 59,367.62 crore
rupees and is only 4.38% of its total imports while exports are valued at
Rs 89,522.59 crores and accounts for 10.59% of India’s exports in 2009-
10. This low value and low shares are nothing to be surprised about
and is a clear indication of India’s longstanding policy stance towards
agriculture. In particular, India had imposed relatively high import duties
on many agricultural products so that products from other countries could
not come into the Indian market, drive down prices and threaten farmers’
and agricultural workers’ livelihoods and incomes. Even though average
applied duties have come down significantly to 31.4% in 2009-10, and India
had to fix maximum duties at average level of 113.1% (see WTO section
below), duties in India are still relatively high compared to most developed
and even many developing countries. There are several reasons behind
this policy stance;
1. Globally, value and share of agricultural trade is lower and is only

about 10% of world trade in goods.
2. For developing countries, agriculture is not just a means of business
but a source of food security and livelihoods for largest sections of
their people. It relates to basic survival. India is no different. From
a food security perspective, for a large country with 37.20% of
population below poverty line, it makes sense to try to achieve self
sufficiency in food. The global food crisis of 2008 and the ongoing
food crises have taught us important lessons about retaining self
sufficiency in food. Unlike some food importing nations who does

not have even the natural resources to produce food, India also has
agro climatic zones to produce a range of food that can cater to its
vast populations’ needs.
3. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally
appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and
sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and
agriculture systems.
4. From a livelihood perspective, the agriculture sector has been
essential because it has provided jobs to millions of small farmers
and agricultural labourers, people who have very little/no productive
resources to produce who may find it difficult to shift gainfully out of
agriculture. We have already seen large migration out of agriculture,
mainly due to its policy neglect, but most often into very risky,
unstable work in the informal economy in urban areas with unhealthy
working and living conditions.
5. In terms of competitiveness Indian agriculture has lagged somewhat
behind, given the lack of investment, access to credit and other
resources, and the lack of attention in bringing up capabilities
of small farmers who dominate the sector. Therefore, export
capabilities have lagged behind except in some specific products
such as basmati rice, oilseeds, cotton etc.
6. Another set of more recent factors have also shown us the dangers
of international trade in agricultural products.
As India has opened up agricultural markets, the high price
volatility of global agricultural markets has got increasingly
transmitted to domestic markets, and this hurts small both
producers and consumers. Most developing country producers
do not have the financial resources to provide buffer to either
their producers or consumers on a scale required. The naturally
fluctuating tendency of agricultural prices has got significantly
aggravated by speculation in global commodity markets by big
players, and control of trade by a few large multinational firms.
B. Entry of Multilateral and Bilateral Trade Agreements

In spite of compelling arguments to protect its agriculture sector which had
for long guided the government’s position on trade, the Indian government
has increasingly followed a path of agricultural trade liberalisation and
has been bringing down import duties on agricultural products. This has
been largely driven by the fact that India has participated in a number of
international agreements which has obliged it to reduce or limit the use of
import duties.
The World Trade Organisation and the Agreement on Agriculture

(AoA)
India became a member

Box 1: International Trade and Edible Oil
of the WTO in 1995 and
signed the AoA. As part In spite of being one of the largest producers
of this agreement India of oilseeds, India reduced duties on processed
edible oil after joining the WTO. Immediately
and other developing imports of palm oil and vegetable oil came
countries agreed to sign into the Indian market, and Indian processing
on to opening up of their capabilities never grew. Even now India has to
import 50% of all edible oil consumed in India
agricultural markets in the
which forms 68% of its agricultural imports,
hope of getting access even though it is a primary exporter of oilseeds.
to developed country Import under this chapter was valued at a
massive 29860 crore rupees.
markets. But this has not
really happened as the
points below argue:
• Countries agreed to negotiate on three pillars, namely, market

access (how much they will open up and allow imports); domestic
support and export subsidies. The last two pillars are mainly
about government support in developed countries to their producers
which lowers their effective costs and prices at which they can sell
to others. These are seen as unfair mechanisms which boost their
competitiveness at the cost of farmers in developing countries who
do not receive such subsidies.
• India agreed to cap (put a restriction) maximum duties on
agricultural import duties on each and every agricultural product.
India has set its maximum/bound average agricultural duty at
113.1%. In spite of a high rate, fixing maximum tariffs has meant

India has lost flexibility to protect its agricultural producers when it
wants.
• In addition, negotiations are going on at the WTO on how these
maximum duties, called bound duties, will be finally cut by
member countries.
• To comply with its WTO commitments and to prepare for the ultimate
reduction of import duties, India has already capped bound duties
on over 73.8% of its products (agricultural and non agricultural
together) and has also continuously reduced actual applied import
duties (currently at 31.4%). This has allowed the increasing import
of these goods and has threatened jobs.
• In addition, another worry has been the increasing threat to
domestic processing capabilities. The case of edible oil is the
prime example of this (See Box 1).
• India is free to use export measures on a temporary basis to protect
food security.
• However, the other two pillars of reduction of domestic and export
subsidies have not seen so much movement. For example, while
the EU has made some commitments to cut export subsidies, its
domestic subsidies have continued to be huge. This has meant
that the developed countries’ subsidised agricultural products have
entered or have the potential to enter developing country markets
once their duties are reduced and devastate their agricultural
markets (See Box.2). This has been established by a number of
studies including one by UNCTAD India (2007). The developed
countries have also engaged in “box-shifting” or passing off different
subsidies which were meant to be cut as ones that do not need
reduction under WTO commitments.
• On the other hand, under the WTO, countries are free to lay down food
standards and other technical standards though these will apply
equally to all members. As tariffs/ duties have been coming down most
countries have used these standards (known as SPSMs and TBTs)
as barriers to protect their markets. However even in this regard, the
developed countries
have imposed much Box 2: The WTO and Subsidised Dairy
higher standards Imports from the EU
which developing
• Import and export of dairy products were
country producers
restricted through quantitative restrictions
have found difficult
(QRs) and canalisation of trade, but these
to meet, even when
had to be converted to tariffs under the
faced with low duties.
WTO rules. Imports tariffs ranged between
• At the WTO, 0 (skimmed milk powder or SMP) to 100-
developing countries 150% (milk and cream, butter milk, yoghurt
have fought for and whey).
and won two
instruments: the • India experienced high surge in imports
Special Safeguard of dairy products in 1999-2000 when QRs
Mechanism (SSM) had to be removed under the WTO and
and Special became an importer of milk powder and
Products (SP). butter oil/ghee, which account for over
The SSM allows 70% of total dairy imports.
developing countries • India re-negotiated and established tariff
to raise duties rate quota (TRQ) for SMP from June
when faced with a 2000. A quota of 10,000 tonnes at a 15%
significant increase duty, and an over-quota tariff of 60% were
(or surge) in imports imposed.
of agricultural
products which can • Source: TWN and others (2011): India’s
threaten livelihoods FTAs and MSMEs (Part IV): Case Study
of their producers. of Food Processing.
The SP allows
certain products to
be listed as special
and therefore given
certain flexibilities in terms of duty cuts, on grounds of protecting
food and livelihood security and for rural development. However the
current negotiations at the WTO show the continuous effort of the
developed countries to severely restrict the use of these instruments
and render them almost ineffective. In 2008, the WTO talks broke
down because developing countries such as India refused to accept

the severe restriction on the use of SSM that the developed countries
were trying to impose on the increase of tariffs to beyond-bound
rates in the case of an import surge.
• The Trade in Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement
includes establishment of intellectual property and knowledge as
private property but IPRs related to agriculture such as control
of seeds by breeders, IPRs on agro chemicals were largely kept
flexible under TRIPS.
Bilateral Trade Agreements or Free Trade Agreement: What does it
mean for Agriculture?
With the impasse at the WTO, countries have been signing bilateral or free
trade agreements with each other and given each other preferential access.
India has also been negotiating about 30 such agreements and about 14
are already signed (including preferential and free trade agreements) and
16 others are being negotiated. In addition some countries have a separate
agreement on other issues such as with Nepal on Transit and follow up
and broader agreements with existing FTA partners such as ASEAN, Chile
are underway. India is engaged in an advanced stage of negotiations with
developed countries such as the European Union, EFTA, while talks with
Canada, New Zealand and Australia have been recently launched. With
many of its partners India is negotiating or has signed bigger agreements
called Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CEPAs) or
Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CECAs) or Bilateral
Trade and Investment Agreements (BTIAs).
The FTAs (term used as a generic term to describe all bilateral/plurilateral

agreements) are significantly different from the WTO and go much beyond
what the WTO involved. While most FTAs include chapters on goods trade,
India’s recent FTAs, especially those being signed and negotiated with
developed countries, include chapters on services, investment, intellectual
property rights, government procurement and competition policy. All these
together have significant implications for the agriculture sector.
• Under FTAs, the actual applied duties are cut, not the bound
duties, on most products. So even the bound duties allowed by
the WTO are not permitted under the FTAs. This duty cut often has
to be implemented in pretty short periods of time. For example the
EU-India FTA is apparently talking of duties cut to zero only over 7
years.
• Very few products can be kept out of the purview of the FTAs.
This varies from FTA to FTA. While the SAFTA agreement allows
quite a large sensitive list of products which can be treated more
leniently, the EU-India FTA wants over 92% of goods (agricultural
and industrial) to be included leaving very few products that can be
protected from tariff cuts. This is why agricultural products, which
India has been more protective about, are increasingly being included
for duty cuts in order to meet large coverage requirements. EU, for
example, wants access to a number of agricultural products such as
dairy, poultry, cereals, fish products. The ASEAN Agreement had
sparked fears of a threat to plantation and fish products. In addition,
sometimes duties on even the exempted products must face a
“standstill” which means these duties cannot be raised from current
levels even if required.
• Talks on SP and SSM are much stricter than under the WTO and
depend a lot on the developing countries’ negotiating skills.
• Agricultural Subsidies CANNOT be negotiated under FTAs and
therefore developed countries cannot be asked to cut subsidies
even if it undercuts costs and prices of partner country producers.
According to projections for the EU-India FTA, India will get hurt
in the dairy where many small holders, particularly women are
engaged. The EU and member states maintain substantial amount
of subsidies both as domestic support as well as export subsidy in
respect of dairy sector, which makes EU’s products competitive
and these practices are trade distorting and restrictive.
Source: Vijay Paul Mehta, ‘India-EU Free Trade Agreement:

Likely Implications for the Indian Dairy Sector’, Draft Paper, April
2011
• Standards themselves cannot be negotiated but some agreements

can be made to recognise each others certification processes.
However, developed countries are often very strict about food

standards which can continue to create barriers for developing
country exporters even when an FTA is in place (See Box 3).
• EU, for example, wants India to remove its export measures
even on food items which India uses from time to time to maintain
domestic food security. Not
Box 3: Food Standards in the EU and How only will this jeopardise the
it can Impact Indian Exports: The Example food security of the country
of the Poultry Sector especially in times of food
crisis, this will also reduce
• Lack of harmonization of egg products
supply and raise prices of
standards in EU member countries
essential raw material for
which mean Indian exporters need
the industry. The cereal
approval by individual member countries.
and pulse based industries,
• MRL limits on egg powder. If EU and and confectionary
India remove tariffs on egg and egg manufacturers will be
products and there is no mutual recognition affected.
agreement on standards (or removal of • Foreign Direct
Non-Tariff Barriers by EU and India, in Investment (FDI) in
general), FTA will be give market access Services such as retail
to EU and not to India. which are critically linked to
agricultural production and
• Import Restrictions on Indian Poultry
markets are now coming
Meat In the area of poultry meat, India
under the purview of FTAs.
does not process much. Demand for
This can have severe
breast is high in EU whereas demand for
implication in terms of
legs is high in India. Therefore India can
leaving the small farmers
theoretically sell breasts to EU and EU can
out of the market chain,
sell legs to India. However again if the FTA
threatening the survival
reduces high Indian tariffs (30-100%) but
of local markets, and the
does not reduce standards or gets MRAs,
aggressive domination
India will lose in the bargain.
of contract farming,
Source: TWN and others (2011): India’s FTAs elimination of nutritious but
and MSMEs (Part IV): Case Study of Food not commercially viable
Processing. crops, monoculture etc.
• India is being asked by developed country partners to include

Intellectual Property Rights that go beyond its TRIPS commitments
under the FTAs. This can mean that prices of agro chemicals may
increase under the provision of “data exclusivity” demanded by
EFTA, EU countries (increasing costs for farmers). The EU also
wants India to sign international conventions such as UPOV 1991
which recognises seed breeding companies rights and undermines
farmers’ traditional practices to save, exchange, and sell seeds
freely.
• The investment chapters under these FTAs are increasingly
allowing FDI in land and natural resources, critical for the survival
of agriculture and the rural population. Unlike the FTAs, investment
was included under the WTO in a very limited manner. Though
direct FDI in agricultural production is still not allowed in India, FDI
in many of the allied activities has been increasingly allowed. In
addition, allowing FDI in industry, mining and other areas has also
increased the pressure on even agricultural land and has increased
the tendency for land grab. Investment chapters under FTAs and the
Bilateral Investment Treaties (Stand-alone Investment Agreements
signed with about 75 countries) gives very strong rights to foreign
investors and challenging land grab and control of natural resources
may become a very difficult task for the government as they can be
sued by the foreign company in international arbitration tribunals for
huge sums of money.
• Interestingly, apart from an overall trade deficit of 540818 crore
rupees in 2010-11, India has been facing a trade deficit vis-à-vis
most of its FTA partners except for Sri Lanka, SAFTA countries and
Singapore. And it is facing a deficit in agricultural trade in many of
its current FTAs. The projections for the EU-India FTA, for example,
show that our agricultural trade surplus is likely to turn into a deficit
with the FTA.
• Trade affects production structures as well. India is increasingly
importing processed products from developed countries and giving
away its basic food products. International trade model is also
oriented towards high-productivity using capital-and resource-
intensive technology. But these are not suitable or sustainable

options for Indian agriculture.
C. Are the People Involved in the Process of Trade

Policy Making?
The FTAs are threatening the very little space left by the WTO to protect
our agriculture sector and the people who depend on it. Liberalisation, even
of agriculture, has become the new mantra in India. In fact India’s position
on some FTAs is actually challenging the development friendly stance it
had taken at the WTO. But the adverse impacts of these policy measures
is hardly analysed in totality. In negotiating some big agreements, the
government has conducts impact assessments on various service sectors.
But no comprehensive impact assessment of the liberalisation of the
agriculture sector has been forthcoming. Moreover, the WTO discussions
and the documents were at least open and in public domain but the FTAs
negotiations are secret where draft negotiating texts are not shared with
those that will be affected the most or even with the people’s representatives.
There are hardly any parliamentary debates and in fact India is one of
the few countries where no parliamentary ratification of these agreements
is necessary. State governments need not be consulted even when the
agreements include issues like agriculture and health which are under the
domain of the state governments. The Ministry of Commerce, directed by
the PMO, can negotiate and sign these deals on their own.
When the WTO agreement was being negotiated, India had seen major
protests across the country from farmers groups, NGOs, academics,
students, workers and others. This was because the discussions were
public and the multilateral nature of the agreement made the threat
sizeable and credible. But the FTAs are signed in relative secrecy with
very little public debates or information dissemination and the bilateral
nature of these agreements often make them seem innocuous and less
threatening. Also estimating the full impact of these agreements needs
an understanding of provision across several chapters and the technical
expertise to understand and challenge these provisions. There is very
limited space for inputs from and engagements with farmers groups,
workers and other interested groups.
Unless India’s political leaders, farmers, workers and civil society gets
actively engaged with India’s trade policy, the nature and patterns of
agricultural trade liberalisations may increasingly threaten the very
survival of the sector. According to Prof. Olivier De Schutter, UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, enabling small producers to continue to
produce food and not threaten their survival can be the only basis for a
country to protect its right to food. He, in particular, challenged the WTO’s
role in pushing small producers in developing countries out of agriculture
and making countries import dependent. In any case, It is the right of the
people to have access to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced
through ecologically sound and sustainable methods through self defined
food and agriculture systems. Food sovereignty and food security are
interlinked and are in total contradiction with the WTO and FTA rules that
put the demands of markets and corporations at the heart of food systems
and policies.
D. What do Indian Farmers Demand in Terms of

International Trade Policy?
• Take agriculture out of the WTO and FTAs so that there is full
flexibility to increase import duties on all agricultural products to stop
the inflow of subsidized imports and import surges to protect the
national food sovereignty and farmers lives.
• Reinstate quantitative restrictions (QR’s) to prevent dumping of
artificially cheep and subsidised products, destroying farmers’
livelihoods and the nations’ food security; QRs are a right to defend
ourselves from perverse dumping.
• Change trade’s exclusive focus on corporate agriculture and instead
focus its policies on farmer centred and earth entered low lost high
output bio-diverse and ecological farming;
• Ensure that the Indian negotiators do not open up agriculture for
some concessions in other areas e.g. GATS either at the WTO or in
FTAs;
• Ensure Indian farmers fair and just prices and incomes for the
vital work they perform for society in food production. Fair prices
require a reintroduction of QRs, given the high levels of subsidies

rich countries give for dumping agricultural products. Fair prices also
require a minimum purchase price (MPP) independent of whether
the buyer is the government, private traders or global MNCs. Price
regulation is a duty of the government. Just prices are a fundamental
right of farmers.
E. What would be a Just and Sustainable Agricultural

Framework?
• Strong protections and support for sustainable family farm based
food production for domestic consumption on the national level that
must be allowed for within the global trading system.
• A global trading system that disciplines corporate behaviour, and
puts an end to dumping.
• A clear prohibition of any speculation on food.
• New regulations on the market based policy of production control
(supply management) to stabilize agricultural prices.
• Real agrarian reforms to assure that farmers who produce food for
the population have access to agricultural resources (lands, waters,
seeds, infrastructure, information, livestock and biodiversity) rather
than big businesses which produce for export.
• These measures, taken together, would truly start a strongly needed
transformation of our food system, and deliver important progress
towards ensuring food sovereignty, farmers’ livelihoods and
environmental protection.
4. The great land grab: India’s war on

farmers Dr Vandana Shiva
Dr Vandana Shiva
source: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/
opinion/2011/06/20116711756667987.html
Land is a valuable asset that should be used to better humanity through

farming and ecology.
“The Earth upon which the sea, and the rivers and waters, upon which food
and the tribes of man have arisen, upon which this breathing, moving life
exists, shall afford us precedence in drinking.”
- Prithvi Sukta, Atharva Veda
Land is life. It is the basis of livelihoods for peasants and indigenous

people across the Third World and is also becoming the most vital asset in
the global economy. As the resource demands of globalisation increase,
land has emerged as a key source of conflict. In India, 65 per cent of
people are dependent on land. At the same time a global economy, driven
by speculative finance and limitless consumerism, wants the land for
mining and for industry, for towns, highways, and biofuel plantations.
The speculative economy of global finance is hundreds of times larger than
the value of real goods and services produced in the world.
Financial capital is hungry for investments and returns on investments.

It must commodify everything on the planet - land and water, plants and
genes, microbes and mammals. The commodification of land is fuelling the
corporate land grab in India, both through the creation of Special Economic
Zones and through foreign direct investment in real estate.
Land, for most people in the world, is Terra Madre, Mother Earth, Bhoomi,
Dharti Ma. The land is people’s identity; it is the ground of culture and
economy. The bond with the land is a bond with Bhoomi, our Earth; 75 per
cent of the people in the Third World live on the land and are supported by
the land. The Earth is the biggest employer on the planet: 75 per cent of
the wealth of the people of the global south is in land.
Colonisation was based on the violent takeover of land. And now,

globalisation as recolonisation is leading to a massive land grab in India, in
Africa, in Latin America. Land is being grabbed for speculative investment,
for speculative urban sprawl, for mines and factories, for highways and
expressways. Land is being grabbed from farmers after trapping them in
debt and pushing them to suicide.
India’s land issues

In India, the land grab is facilitated by the toxic mixture of the colonial Land
Acquisition Act of 1894, the deregulation of investments and commerce
through neo-liberal policies - and with it the emergence of the rule of
uncontrolled greed and exploitation. It is facilitated by the creation of a
police state and the use of colonial sedition laws which define defence of
the public interest and national interest as anti-national.
The World Bank has worked for many years to commodify land. The
1991 World Bank structural adjustment programme reversed land reform,
deregulated mining, roads and ports. While the laws of independent
India to keep land in the hands of the tiller were reversed, the 1894 Land
Acquisition Act was untouched.
Thus the state could forcibly acquire the land from the peasants and tribal
peoples and hand it over to private speculators, real estate corporations,
mining companies and industry.
Across the length and breadth of India, from Bhatta in Uttar Pradesh (UP) to
Jagatsinghpur in Orissa to Jaitapur in Maharashtra, the government has
declared war on our farmers, our annadatas, in order to grab their fertile
farmland.
Their instrument is the colonial Land Acquisition Act - used by foreign
rulers against Indian citizens. The government is behaving as the foreign
rulers did when the Act was first enforced in 1894, appropriating land
through violence for the profit of corporations - JayPee Infratech in Uttar
Pradesh for the Yamuna expressway, POSCO in Orissa and AREVA in
Jaitapur - grabbing land for private profit and not, by any stretch of the
imagination, for any public purpose. This is rampant in the country today.
These land wars have serious consequences for our nation’s democracy,

our peace and our ecology, our food security and rural livelihoods. The
land wars must stop if India is to survive ecologically and democratically.
While the Orissa government prepares to take the land of people in

Jagatsinghpur, people who have been involved in a democratic struggle
against land acquisition since 2005, Rahul Gandhi makes it known that he
stands against forceful land acquisition in a similar case in Bhatta in Uttar
Pradesh. The Minister for the Environment, Mr Jairam Ramesh, admitted
that he gave the green signal to pass the POSCO project - reportedly under
great pressure. One may ask: “Pressure from whom?” This visible double
standard when it comes to the question of land in the country must stop.
Violation of the land

In Bhatta Parsual, Greater Noida (UP), about 6000 acres of land is being
acquired by infrastructure company Jaiprakash Associates to build luxury
townships and sports facilities - including a Formula 1 racetrack - in the
guise of building the Yamuna Expressway. In total, the land of 1225
villages is to be acquired for the 165km Expressway. The farmers have
been protesting this unjust land acquisition, and last week, four people
died - while many were injured during a clash between protesters and the
police on May 7, 2011. If the government continues its land wars in the
heart of India’s bread basket, there will be no chance for peace.
In any case, money cannot compensate for the alienation of land. As

80-year-old Parshuram, who lost his land to the Yamuna Expressway,
said: “You will never understand how it feels to become landless.”
While land has been taken from farmers at Rs 300 ($6) per square metre
by the government - using the Land Acquistion Act - it is sold by developers
at Rs 600,000 ($13,450) per square metre - a 200,000 per cent increase
in price - and hence profits. This land grab and the profits contribute to
poverty, dispossession and conflict.
Similarly, on April 18, in Jaitapur, Maharashtra, police opened fire on

peaceful protesters demonstrating against the Nuclear Power Park
proposed for a village adjacent to the small port town. One person died
and at least eight were seriously injured. The Jaitapur nuclear plant will
be the biggest in the world and is being built by French company AREVA.
After the Fukushima disaster, the protest has intensified - as has the
government’s stubbornness.
Today, a similar situation is brewing in Jagatsinghpur, Orissa, where 20

battalions have been deployed to assist in the anti-constitutional land
acquisition to protect the stake of India’s largest foreign direct investment -
the POSCO Steel project. The government has set the target of destroying
40 betel farms a day to facilitate the land grab. The betel brings the
farmers an annual earning of Rs 400,000 ($9,000) an acre. The Anti-
POSCO movement, in its five years of peaceful protest, has faced state
violence numerous time and is now gearing up for another - perhaps final
- non-violent and democratic resistance against a state using violence to
facilitate its undemocratic land grab for corporate profits, overlooking due
process and the constitutional rights of the people.
The largest democracy of the world is destroying its democratic fabric

through its land wars. While the constitution recognises the rights of the
people and the panchayats [village councils] to democratically decide the
issues of land and development, the government is disregarding these
democratic decisions - as is evident from the POSCO project where three
panchayats have refused to give up their land.
The use of violence and destruction of livelihoods that the current trend is
reflecting is not only dangerous for the future of Indian democracy, but for
the survival of the Indian nation state itself. Considering that today India
may claim to be a growing or booming economy - but yet is unable feed
more than 40 per cent of its children is a matter of national shame.
Land is not about building concrete jungles as proof of growth and

development; it is the progenitor of food and water, a basic for human
survival. It is thus clear: what India needs today is not a land grab policy
through an amended colonial land acquisition act but a land conservation
policy, which conserves our vital eco-systems, such as the fertile Gangetic
plain and coastal regions, for their ecological functions and contribution to
food security.
Handing over fertile land to private corporations, who are becoming the
new zamindars [heriditary aristocrats], cannot be defined as having a public
purpose. Creating multiple privatised super highways and expressways
does not qualify as necessary infrastructure. The real infrastructure India
needs is the ecological infrastructure for food security and water security.
Burying our fertile food-producing soils under concrete and factories is
burying the country’s future.
J.S. Mill, The Principles of Political Economy. Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1848.
5. Consequences (of land grab) for

agriculture and food security
BHASKAR GOSWAMI
http://agrariancrisis.in/2008/12/10/consequences-for-agriculture-and-food-security/
AROUND 160 years back political economist John Stuart Mill wrote, ‘Land
differs from other elements of production, labour and capital in not being
susceptible to infinite increase. Its extent is limited and the extent of the
more productive kinds of it more limited still. It is also evident that the
quantity of produce capable of being raised on any given piece of land is
not indefinite. This limited quantity of land, and limited productiveness of it,
are the real limits to the increase of production.’1 Never more do his words
ring true than today in India.
With the pressure of billion-plus mouths to feed, and returns on agricultural
inputs declining, it would seem prudent to protect the area under
agriculture, if not bring more area under cultivation. However, what we are
witnessing is the reverse. Faced with competing demands for land from
the non-agriculture sector and rapid urbanization, large chunks of prime
agriculture land are being diverted for non-agricultural purposes. This has
serious implications for food security.
A little over 46 per cent of the country’s area is under agriculture. Between
1990 and 2003, the area cultivated went down by around 1.5 per cent.
While in percentage terms this may seem insignificant, in absolute terms
it translates to more than 21 lakh hectares. If this area was brought under
wheat (for the sake of argument), it would amount to a mind-boggling 57
lakh tonnes, which can feed more than 4.3 crore hungry people every
year. Had political will to prevent this diversion prevailed, the number of
hungry would have gone down substantially. On the other hand, between
1990 and 2004, land under non-agricultural uses has gone up by 34 lakh
hectares.
J.S. Mill, The Principles of Political Economy. Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1848.
All across the country, agriculture land is shrinking. In Kerala, the area
under paddy is around 3.5 lakh hectares as against 10 lakh hectares in
1980. As a result the demand for rice is about five times higher than what
is produced by the state. Mineral-rich Orissa is losing agricultural land to
mining and power projects. Even in the case of a small state like Himachal
Pradesh the net sown area has declined by 33,000 hectares between 1991
and 2001.
In recent years this rate of diversion has gone up. For instance, across 25
mandals in and around Hyderabad, 90,000 hectares of agriculture land
has been diverted during the last five years. Real estate major Emaar MGF
owns over 4,000 hectares of agricultural land across the country while
DLF controls a land bank of around 3,500 hectares more. To sustain the
high rate of economic growth, major infrastructure development projects
such as construction of new airports, roads, power generation plants etc.
are coming up. All this and more through large-scale diversion of fertile
agriculture land.
Diversion of agricultural land for industry is frequently justified by pointing

towards cultivable wasteland – around 132 lakh hectares – which can be
developed and put under cultivation. However, cultivable wastelands have
also declined by over 18 lakh hectares between 1990 and 2004. Further,
even if these wastelands are developed and made cultivable to grow food,
the productivity will remain abysmally low for several years.
In addition to increasing production of foodgrains for ensuring food security,

pulses and fats are necessary for nutrition security. On the one hand,
feeding half of the world’s hungry who live in India will require at least 170
lakh hectares of additional land under cultivation. On the other, to achieve
self sufficiency in pulses and edible oils will require 200 lakh hectares
more. Where will this land come from? Forget agricultural land; there is not
enough cultivable wasteland available to meet this requirement.
The fact is that there simply is not enough land to go around. The statement
of the Commerce Ministry, ‘SEZs account for 0.000012 per cent of the
country’s arable area’ therefore needs to be viewed through this prism.
When the ministry states that just over two lakh hectares of land will be lost
once the formally and informally approved SEZs come up, it ignores the fact
that this can feed over four million hungry every year in perpetuity. These
numbers have gone up recently. Check the Ministry of Commerce website
for latest data. Further, the argument of the ministry that most land under
SEZs had already been acquired by state governments is indefensible

because prior to its acquisition, it would have been under cultivation.
Agriculturally rich states like Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh
account for over 70 per cent of the land that is earmarked for approved
SEZs. Punjab and Haryana which meet a bulk of the country’s foodgrain
requirement are promoting SEZs on prime agricultural land. With the
Ministry of Commerce announcing on 3 December 2007 that the 5,000
hectare ceiling on multi-product SEZs may be relaxed, it is music to the
ears of big developers whose projects were stalled. Now with acquisition
of land left to the SEZ promoters, agricultural land is bound to come under
increasing pressure.
In addition to land, water is another resource that is limited in supply and
increased competition for its use between agriculture and the industry is
jeopardizing food security. As it is, barely 40 per cent of the cultivated
area of the country is irrigated while the rest depends on unpredictable
rains to produce crops. This limited area however accounts for more than
half of the total value of output of Indian agriculture. Irrigation also has the
potential to increase crop yield by 30 per cent and therefore its importance
for ensuring food security cannot be ignored.
Between farming and industry, which sector will have a priority over the
use of this scarce resource? The SEZ Act of 2005 and SEZ Rules (2006)
do not answer this question. Legislations at the state-level are either silent
on this issue or clearly allow SEZs to develop water supply and distribute
to its units. Given the present rules governing groundwater resources in
the country, there is precious little that a state can do to prevent SEZs from
running the underground aquifers dry and leaving nothing for surrounding
farmlands.
Not only groundwater, even rivers and reservoirs meant for irrigation
purposes are now being put at the service of SEZs. Take for instance
the Whitefield Paper Mills SEZ in Andhra Pradesh. Located within five
kilometres of the river Godavari, the state government has permitted the
SEZ to draw 100 million litres of water per day. While the river at present has
ample water, it is noteworthy that more than half of the Godavari river basin
is categorized as cultivable land and, naturally, any mass-industrialization
along this zone will reduce water availability for irrigation.
In Orissa, the allocation of water to industries from the Hirakud reservoir
to industries has gone up 30 times over the 1997 levels. Notwithstanding
protests by farmers against diversion of water meant for irrigation, the

state is going ahead with its plans to increase allocation for industries
– many of which are SEZs – like the Hindalco industries in Sambalpur
district and Vedanta Industries Ltd. in Jharsuguda. POSCO’s proposed
SEZ in Jagatsinghpur has been allowed to directly draw water from the
river Mahanadi.
While industries are being given a priority over water rights by the Orissa
government, Padampur subdivision of Bargarh district of the state, which
falls in the command area of Hirakud dam, has remained permanently in
the grip of continuous drought and agricultural failure since the 1960s. This
area has also earned the dubious distinction of being one of the poorest
region of the world. Obviously somebody has been busy stealing water
meant for irrigating the crops of poor farmers.
There is more. The Mundra Port SEZ being developed by the Adani Group
in the Gulf of Kutch, Gujarat has managed to access six million litres per
day of Narmada water for immediate use and they expect the allotment
to go up. SIPCOT SEZ in Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu will receive water
from the SIPCOT water supply scheme. Government of Andhra Pradesh
will install a pipeline capable of carrying dedicated capacity of 20 million
gallons of water per day for the FAB City SEZ coming up near Hyderabad.
The list is endless.
It is unfortunate that despite over 177 lakh hectares of barren and
uncultivable land lying unused, scarce resources like rich agricultural land
and water are being poached upon to promote SEZs. To feed a billion plus
people, 350 million of whom are chronically food insecure, the government
is pushing for diversification away from foodgrains to produce non-food
cash crops. The cash generated through exports of these will be used to
import food.
However, there are some who believe that there may be pitfalls with this
approach. ‘It’s important for our nation to be able to grow foodstuffs to feed
our people. Can you imagine a country that was unable to grow enough
food to feed the people? It would be a nation that would be subject to
international pressure. It would be a nation at risk. And so when we’re
talking about American agriculture, we’re really talking about a national
security issue.’
This was President George W. Bush addressing the National Future
Farmers of America Organization on 27 July 2001. For once, Bush does
make sense.
6. Position of the Indian Coordination

Committee of Farmers Movements
on the Land Acquisition Bill
prepared by : Secretariat, La Via Campesina South Asia
This bill has now been renamed as the “The Right to Fair Compensation,
Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill”.
The government is trying to fulfill the land requirements of corporations,
and it has openly stated that it wants to reduce the number of farmers in this
country. The Right to Fair compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition is not about using land for the livelihood
security and food security and development of its people. This act is about
creating a process, whereby farmers will offer the least resistance when
land is handed over to corporations. It is in this light, that the ICCFM has
been opposing the fundamental nature of this bill. Below are the position of
the ICCFM on various issues related to the land bill.
NOTE ON SEVERAL LAND USE AND RIGHTS’ RELATED

ISSUES, INCLUDING LAND ACQUISITION
1. Public Purpose:
Private and PPP projects cannot be construed as public purpose. We
outright reject giving land to corporations and PPP under the guise of
people’s development. We especially reject the inclusion of acquisition for
the vague term “infrastructure projects” in the current form of the bill which
allows the government to define any project as if it is for public purpose.
Furthermore, whether any project is for Public purpose or not must be
established by gram sabas.
We stress that when land is acquired then the affected should be the
beneficiaries. For instance the government has been acquiring land for
private hospitals and schools, however our own communities cannot
afford these. Furthermore, many promises of jobs etc made during land
acquisition are not fulfilled on the pretext that we are not qualified for them.
We therefore are not willing to accept the current broad definition of public
purpose in the bill.
Further, it is found that thousands and thousands of acres of land is

being diverted for other purposes, once acquired in the name of Public
Purpose, as in the case of several airport land acquisitions. The principle
of absolutely minimal acquisition has not been applied. There is an urgent
need to take up a review of all land allotted so far after land acquisition for
stated purposes to see if the land is being put to use against the stated
purpose and if not, return the land to the original landowners or to the
lowest administrative unit, to be further used for food and livelihood security
purposes, including providing land for landless.
2. No Forcible Acquisition:
No forcible acquisition should be allowed. This means 100% consent in the
local governance unit (Palli sabha/gram sabha). Land cannot be acquired if
not all affected are agreeing to it. This includes the ones whose livelihoods
are tied to the resource, even if ownership rights do not exist on the same.
3. No Agricultural Lands To Be Acquired:

No agricultural land should be acquired. The classification into single crop
or double crop, irrigated or rain fed does not seem to matter since it is not
just about food security at the national level that one should be worried
about but livelihood security and food security of the affected, which is
more fragile in the case of single-cropped lands.
4. Return unused lands – no land banks:

We strongly oppose any moves to make a land bank. Land unused for 5
years should be transferred back to original owners or the project-affected
persons. The government has already acquired thousands of acres of
lands that are lying idle all across the country. These lands were taken
from farmers previously and now have not been used or illegally converted
to some other use. In many cases farmers are yet to see any compensation
or rehabilitation.
5. Land Use Planning:

It is important to initiate a process of land use planning urgently in the
country, starting from Gram Sabha upwards, prioritizing food and livelihood
security of rural households. This would then give a picture of any land
available, if at all, for such acquisitions, after taking into account the needs
of various households, including those of livestock rearers and grazing
lands for them, eco-system services being provided by water bodies in
addition to livelihoods to fisher folk etc. etc. Without such land use planning
processes undertaken, with legal legitimacy accorded to the same, with
the Gram Sabhas first staking claim to such plans and resources needed
for the same, the country will always see a tussle between different forces
and will not be able to meet its many development objectives, defined
collectively.
6. One Unified Statute:

It makes no sense to have land acquisition happening under more than a
dozen laws in the country with one statute being debated under the name
of “land acquisition”. It is indeed a great need to have one unified statute
and this is what should be enacted in the Parliament – any land acquisition
in the country should be only through this statutory regime.
7. Pesa/Scheduled Areas:
The constitutional and legal provisions accorded to scheduled areas should
be fully upheld and no diluting should be allowed here.
8. Gram Sabha Has The Authority:

Any statute governing land acquisition has to first uphold the constitutional
authority vested in Gram Sabhas . Their prior, informed consent must be
obtained and their full participation ensured in all the steps of acquisition-
MOU signing, project planning, assessments, implementation, and R and

R. Gram Sabhas should have the right to stop a project if they find any
violations.
8. Complete The Pending R&R Processes:

Lakhs of people in this country, “project-affected” and subjected to
involuntary displacement, are awaiting just compensation, relief and
rehabilitation to this day. This is also an indication of what lies in store for
many others in future if things are not improved drastically. It is an urgent
imperative that further debates on land acquisition happen only after
completing the pending R&R processes, so that the country may learn
lessons from the experiences before moving forward.
9. Rights Of Dependent Families:

Today, farming in the country is mostly by tenant farmers and sharecroppers
in several pockets of the country with the land owners being absentee
landowners. Land acquisition in all such cases will directly disrupt the lives
and livelihoods of dependent families, especially in a situation where tenant
farming and sharecropping is not recorded anywhere officially for a variety
of reasons. Any approach to land acquisition has to first recognize this
challenge and ensure that the livelihood rights of these dependent families
are fully protected. In fact, using the opportunity of land acquisition as and
when it happens in the rarest of rare cases, there should be a special thrust
on equity to address the issues of the most marginalized including control
over productive resources.
10. Compensation, Resettlement & Rehabilitation:

Compensation cannot be fixed at guideline value given that this is far lower
than market prices. Compensation should be pegged at least a value higher
than the market price and any industry seeking to acquire land should
show it as part of their realistic costing. Further, relief and rehabilitation
should be for all affected families, and should have a mandatory land
for land option in addition to trying to make rehabilitation as long term as
possible. Resettlement and Rehabilitation should be seen as opportunities
for ensuring equitable development and planned as such.
12. White Paper On Current Status Of Land Acquisition

And Mous:
Various MoUs and agreements are being signed by the governments with
a variety of industries to give away land for business and other enterprises.
However, there is no clear picture of which land, where, how much, on
what terms and conditions are being given away or promised under
various agreements. It is very important that governments first bring out
comprehensive and accurate White Papers on the status of land acquisition
so far, and the agreements related to/involving land acquisition in future.
This is very important since numbers range from 18 lakh hectares to 180
lakh hectares (which is equal to the total land diverted to non-agricultural
use over the decades from the time of Independence!) are being estimated
as the quantum of land, given away in just the past decade or so across
different states.
13. Eminent Domain:

While the SC may have conceded the power of the State over the nation’s
natural resources to be put to the common good, in the light of the 2G and
‘Coalgate’ scams rocking the nation, the question of trusteeship of the state
arises starkly now more than ever before. It is apparent that the trusteeship
is being misused with little accountability, towards benefiting monopolistic
corporate entities more than the marginalized and common people in the
country. It is being shown in analyses related to the ‘Coalgate’ scam that
not even the trickle-down model of development that the government
believes in is actually accruing from such administration of the trusteeship
vested in the State.
Apart from a history of misuse (for ‘crony capitalism’ and even corruption) of
trusteeship is the question of why eminent domain is invoked mainly in the
context of ‘industrialisation’, ‘urbanisation’ and ‘infrastructure development’
(that too defined narrowly as far as infrastructure development for the
poor is concerned, but defined broadly when it comes to businesses that
profit out of such development) and not in the context of Ruralisation,
Food Security and Livelihood Security. This is not to be seen as empty
rhetoric given that the government does have commitments made to the
Millennium Development Goals, that we have shameful levels of poverty,
hunger and malnourishment in this country, that we have our farmers

committing suicides in tens of thousands….This, then, is our question
on the very development model/paradigm that the State follows, in
the pursuit of which ‘public good’ often means essential resources
of the poorest going into the hands of the rich and powerful. Initiating
a national debate on the concept of “eminent domain” and various
perspectives governing notions of “development” is a need of the hour,
as the country is boiling over with people’s struggles against governments
and corporations for resources.
Given all the above, the following are our main demands:
• Suspend all land acquisition across the country immediately given that
the debate around issues like eminent domain and public purpose
is still unfolding in the country as well as millions of lands already
acquired are remaining idle and under land banks.
• We demand the government of India to formulate a committee
comprising the representatives of the farmer’s and people’s movements
to finalise a new bill and carry out a national debate on public purpose.
The government should makes a timeline to build a consensus among
the farming and rural communities of India, we need debates at the
state and national level. The bill should be translated in all regional
languages so that we may be able to have discussions and debate at
the grassroots level.
• Bring out a comprehensive and accurate white paper on the status of
land and land acquisition/promised land allotments
• Complete pending R&R processes before moving ahead
• Improve the land acquisition and R&R bill taking on board all the
concerns of a vast majority of Indians
• Return lands that have been diverted from the stated purpose when
land was acquired
• Take up a comprehensive land use planning process with the Gram
Sabhas taking the lead in this
7. Power sector issues and agriculture

by Shankar Sharma
Power Policy Analyst
shankar.sharma2005@gmail.com
shankar_sharma1955@hotmail.com
1. Power sector scenario from farmers’ perspective:

• While agriculture is the backbone of any society, it is even more
so in India, where more than 40% of the population is known to be
dependent on activities related to agriculture. Hence high focus on
agriculture is in the overall welfare of the country.
• Agriculture has a major share in electricity consumption in the country.

In recent years about 25 % to 35 % of all electricity consumed in the
country is being consumed by agricultural sector mostly for pumping
water from surface or underground sources.
• In states like Punjab and Haryana the share may be higher because of
high agricultural activities.
• During 2009-10 in Karnataka IP sets consumed 35% of total electricity.
• Because of high reliance on ground water electricity has become a

major requirement for profitable agricultural practice for most of the
farmers.
• Agricultural sector also contributes significantly to GHG emissions.
• While the overall revenue realisation for the sector at the national level
is not good (only about 65%), the revenue realisation from agricultural
consumers is much less.
• Because of low returns from electricity supply to agricultural consumers,

the supply companies are neglecting such consumers resulting in
many hardships to the farmers.
• Shortage of power production capacity is being quoted by authorities

as the prime reason for restricting power supply to agriculture.
• But due to various reasons power sector has been grossly inefficient,
and the accumulated losses in the sector is estimated to be more than
Rs. 120,000 crores.
• Adequate generating capacity addition will be unlikely due to economic,

environmental and social factors unless a paradigm shift to the whole
sector is adopted.
• Natural limits to conventional electricity sources such as coal, dam

based hydro, nuclear and natural gas will not allow much additional
power capacity from these sources.
• During April 2011 – March 2012 8.5% deficit in annual energy and
11.1% deficit during peak hour usage was reported at the national
level.
• There have been such deficits for the last few decades.
• At the national levels the IP sets are generally associated with 40-
50% energy losses due to suction and delivery pipe friction, inefficient
lubrication in pump sets, bad positioning of pump sets, worn out
bearing etc.
• Proper choice of IP set size and quality are not being provided to
farmers.
• These losses can be reduced to less than 10% by simple measures.
• Due to reducing water tables it is getting difficult to get adequate

quantity of water; higher capacity IP Sets are being needed.
2. Has Indian power sector met its farmer’s electricity

needs?
It can be said that during recent years the power sector in the country has
largely failed to meet the needs of its farmers.
• In most of the states the IP sets get 3-phase power only during some
parts of the day; not necessarily when the farmers actually need it.
• Frequent interruptions and low voltage /high voltage problems are
common.
• Break down of lines/transformers are not addressed quickly.
• Burning out of motors.
3. What is energy sovereignty?

Energy sovereignty for our farmers can be defined as the scenario where
adequate quantity /quality of energy/electricity is available to them as
and when they need it at affordable price on a sustainable basis. Such
sovereignty may also mean dependence on one’s own sources such as
solar wind or bio-mass power installed and operated on farmers’ premises,
and that scenario where the farmers need not depend on outside agencies
for such energy/electricity. It may also mean entirely indigenous source of
energy in the case of a state/country.
4. What is sustainable energy?

Supply of energy can be said to be sustainable, when it is projected to
be reliably available in the foreseeable future in both quantity/quality at
affordable price without adversely impacting the natural resources to such
an extent wherein the same energy many not be made available to the
future generations.
5. What kind of energy is needed to fulfill the needs of

Indian farmers?
No one source of energy can meet all the energy needs of our country.
It is true with the requirements of our farmers also. There need be an
optimal mix of different energy sources such that this combination meets
our energy requirements satisfactorily at the lowest societal costs and on

a sustainable basis. In determining such a mix the social, environmental
and economic costs of each source to the society must be determined
realistically.
Due to social, environmental and economic reasons the conventional

sources of electricity (coal, hydro, nuclear and gas) will not be able to
provide sustainable electricity to the farmers. Hence alternative avenues
need to be employed.
What is wrong with India’s energy policy

• The past policies and practices have not lead to an efficient sector,
and has resulted in inequitable supplies to rural and urban consumers.
• Extreme reliance on conventional sources of electricity (coal, hydro,
nuclear and gas), centralised generation and grid based supply.
• Very low efficiencies in all segments of power sector.
• Unscientific pricing and subsidies.
Major Issues with conventional Power Plants

(Coal, natural gas, Hydro and Nuclear)
Economic
Unsustainable pressure on natural resources such as land, water and minerals;
reduced agricultural production; huge capital and operating costs; fast depleting
resources
Social
Peoples’ displacement due to large sizes of power plants; health; decay of rural
India; denial of access to grazing and fishing areas; inter-generational issues;
water scarcity
Environmental
Global Warming; pollution of land, water and air; acid rains; impact on bio-diversity
7. Can we fulfill the electricity needs through low scale

local energy production and renewable?
Satisfactory electricity supply to our farmers cannot be ensured unless the
power sector takes major policy decisions:
• Huge focus should be on ensuring highest possible efficiencies in all

aspects of the sector;
• Effective demand side management or highly responsible usage of
electricity at residences, agriculture, industry, offices, shops etc. can
reduce the total demand for electricity, and hence can provide more
electricity to agriculture;
• Renewable energy sources (wind, solar and bio-mass) in distributed
mode (low scale energy production) are likely to be the future for
agricultural sector; being a tropical country India has a huge potential
in these sources.
• Solar photo voltaic panels within the agricultural farms OR in villages
OR on roof tops of houses have the potential to meet most of the
electricity needs of our farmers/villages.
• Solar energy also are most suited for agriculture because they are
available when the farmers need it; during day time and during summer
months.
• Community based OR individually owned wind turbines and bio-mass
plants are the other credible options for our farmers.
• Bio-fuels are going to play a major role in energy sector, especially in
transportation sector, farmers are also advised to consider carefully
which bio-fuel crop can be grown, how and where so that such crops
can assist them financially, but not adversely impact the food security
at the national / international level
8. What farmers can do to overcome the power crises?

• Appreciate the power sector problems at the local, state and national
levels;
• Work closely with the electricity supply companies to find suitable
solution to their problems;
• Realize that electricity cannot be supplied at zero/low cost; and that

every consumer has to pay the realistic price;
• Volunteer to have accurate energy meter and to pay the correct
electricity charges.
• By doing so they will get a strong right to demand good quality
electricity throughout the day; farmers in few districts of Karnataka (in
Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts in MESCOM area) are getting
much better electricity because of this approach
• Seek the help of professional bodies/ individuals to minimse the
electricity requirements by adopting highest efficiency measures.
• Buy only efficient appliances such as IP sets, section and delivery
pipes.
• Participate effectively in the deliberations of state electricity regulatory
commissions in determining the correct tariff.
• Deliberate and choose the best crop pattern for each farm to minimise
the need for electricity and water.
• Do all that is feasible within the individual limits to optimally harness
rain water and to recharge the grown water table.
• Make various farmers’ bodies/organizations much more effective
by discussing all the related issues inside the movement and take
appropriate decisions.
• Choose those crops and farming methods, which will use minimum
water and electricity, and which will also assist in ensuring food security:
Water will become increasingly difficult in future for our farmers due
to increasing demand from other sectors such as industry, increasing
population, commerce & entertainment etc, and most importantly due
to Climate Change phenomenon. As a matter of fact water, food and
electricity are expected to be the three most scarce resources in future.
There can be no doubt that farmers will have a critical role in managing
these sectors optimally.
8. Understanding Livestock in
context of Food Sovereignty:
Challenges and Action
by Dr Sagari R Ramdas, Anthra
anthra.hyd@gmail.com. www.anthra.org
Small and Marginal farmers, dalits, indigenous people and pastoralists

, particularly women within these communities form the backbone of
India’s food –farming systems. Cultivating crops and rearing animals have
always been intrinsically linked and dependent on the other. This circle
of connectedness and inter-dependency between animals, crops, land,
forests and people has always been known by farming communities, and
is aptly captured in this popular proverb used by farmers from Chittoor
district, Andhra Pradesh:
“ Kasu leka Pashu ledu, Pashu leka, Penta ledu, Penta leka, Panta ledu,
Panta leka pashu ledu”.
“Without fodder we have no animals, without animals we have no dung,

without dung we have no crops, without crops we have no fodder”
Livestock are critical for India’s Food sovereignty, and play a vital role in
supporting the livelihoods of millions of poor landless, small and marginal
households in the country. India has one of the world’s largest combined
populations of different livestock species. In 2007 it had 199 million cattle,
105 million buffalo, 141 million goats, 72 million sheep, 11 million pigs and
649 million poultry. In fact 57, 16 and 17 percent of the world’s buffalo, cattle
and goat populations respectively are reared in India.In sheer economic
terms too, according to Government of India, in 2010 to 2011, livestock
output was valued at Rs2 207 billion or approximately US$49.6 billion (at
2004-2005 prices) – about 22.7 percent more than the value of foodgrains.
Milk, which accounts for more than two- thirds of the value of livestock
output emerged as the largest agricultural commodity in the country. Since
the mid-2000s the value of milk has been larger than the combined value
of rice and wheat the main cereals of India.
In India, Livestock and Agriculture have always been two sides of the same
coin. Without one the other becomes redundant. 2 decades of structural
adjustments, economic reforms and globalization has sought to transform
sustainable mixed crop-livestock food-farming systems to specialized
and distinct intensive industrial systems of livestock production and crop
production, which is aggravating food, fodder, water and energy security.
National policies and plans, rather than re-addressing this growing divide
are actually aggravating the situation, evident in the recent 12th Five Year
Plans for Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. The unfolding tragedy of the
divorce of livestock from agriculture, forced upon the Indian farmer due to
irresponsible policies through the years, can be witnessed today in every
village.
While the green revolution period set the stage, the white revolution
added momentum, and the process has intensified in the last 20 years of
globalization in the shape of corporate control of agriculture and the so-called
“livestock revolution”, with their emphasis on export oriented agriculture,
agro-business tie-ups and foreign direct investment in agriculture. Non-
food/fodder-yielding crops have replaced grain and fodder yielding food
crops, tractors and machinery have replaced animal traction and ironically
animal manure is now far more difficult to obtain than a mobile phone. Post
the eighties, the share of farm animals in power supply declined from 71%
in 1961 to less than 23% in 1991-92. The 59th round of the National Sample
Survey of 2002-03 reports that working cattle in rural areas declined by
25% between 1991-92 and 2002-03. The initial euphoric years of high
crop yields due to intensive green revolution technologies, has given way
to farmers despairing about declining yields and enhanced pest attacks,
which scientists are now ascribing to the excessive use of pesticides and
chemical fertilizers. This coupled with withdrawals of all input subsidies
(both for input and procurement prices) and liberalization of markets at the
other end, as a result of the new economic reforms initiated in the 1990s,
has resulted in acute agricultural distress in the country driving millions

of farmers into huge debts, despair and suicides. Livestock development
policies, plans and programs in the reform era have contributed equally to
this disaster: they continue to be largely pre-occupied with pushing “dairy
development with high-yielding cross-bred animals as a livelihood option for
the poor and others in distress”, privatizing resources (land, water, forests,
air, energy) and services (veterinary health care, extension, research)
that animals depend upon for their survival, and liberalising the livestock
product markets, which is resulting in dumping of highly subsidized goods
from the developed countries, which in turn depresses the price paid to our
Indian farmers, pushing many out of livestock rearing. The latest threat is
the 100% FDI investment policy in agriculture, animal husbandry and allied
sectors.
All these changes have meant multiple disasters for these communities,
of which an oft-overlooked facet has been the rapidly declining rates
of livestock ownership amongst the poorest. Despite 70% of India’s
livestock being owned by landless, marginal and small farmers, recent
studies across India, have indicated that over half of all these households
are “non-livestock owners”, challenging the well entrenched notions of
livestock being more equitably distributed than land. The lack of livestock
in a small farmers livelihood, increases their vulnerability and reduces
resilience. Women in particular have been completed dispossessed, and
marginalized from their key decision making roles that they exercised with
respect to their lives and livelihoods.
A critical aspect of sustainable agriculture, safe food production and

food sovereignty in India lies in restoring our livestock wealth. It also
lies in women within these communities leading the movement for food
sovereignty. The solutions to this grim situation clearly lie in the political will
to immediately reorient and redesign our land-use, agriculture, livestock and
more critically investment and trade policies and plans including research
and development, to establishing an environment that will enable farmers
to farm in ways that will build food, fodder and livelihood sovereignty.
What Livestock Means for Adivasis, Dalits, Peasants,

Pastoralists
Sustainable and ecologically resilient farming, by small peasants, adivasis,
dalits and pastoralists, have livestock- cattle, buffaloes, sheep, goat, poultry,
pigs etc embedded as a key component within the larger cycle of landuse,
farming, crops, livelihoods and life.. Indigenous breeds too evolved as a
part and parcel of this close bio-cultural relationship of communities with
their land and livelihoods. Indigenous breeds are perfectly adapted to their
terrain, are inherently resistant to a wide range of diseases, are hardy and
contribute to food-sovereignty in multiple ways: food (milk, meat, eggs),
energy (agricultural operations,transport, post harvest processing), soil
fertility (manure and urine), fibre, cultural and spiritual integrity and as
a bank on hooves. Women and men have played complementary roles
in shaping the breeds, through their conscious selection choices and
knowledge made over centuries. Indigenous breeds largely continue to be
reared and managed on grazing-based production systems, which implies
the pre-requisite access to land by communities to cultivate food and rear
animals.
Historically in India, livestock (large and small ruminants) have obtained

their nutritional and water requirements by grazing on common lands,
forests, and harvested agriculture fields. Large-scale legal restrictions and
imposition of private property by the colonial state were responsible for
alienating communities from their natural resource base. This drastically
transformed the complex, mutually sustaining relationship that had evolved
hitherto between agriculture, forests and the non-forest commons. Despite
legal obstacles, livestock rearers in India, cutting across different ecological
terrains, land-holding categories, castes and genders, and livestock type
continue to depend on the non-forest commons, forests and private
agriculture lands to meet their fodder and water requirements. A continuum
exists of households that primarily depend on common property resources
(forest and/or non-forest) and private lands within their own village to those
We continue to use colonial terminology and mindsets in our perceptions on indigenous breeds. Some
breeds are “officially” recognised by Government of India, and the majority of community-bred animals
continue to be branded as “non-descript”. We need to steer clear from these colonized frameworks.
Animal Populations owned and bred by communities need to be understood for their purpose and role, as
envisioned by local communities.
who are mostly dependent on these same categories of resources beyond

the village boundaries, sometimes extending to distances of over 400 km
from “homebase”. The 54th NSS0 report of 1998, defines CPRs to include
village pasture lands and grazing grounds, village forests and woodlots,
protected and unclassed government forests, wastelands, common
threshing grounds, watershed drainage, ponds and tanks, rivers, rivulets,
water reservoirs, canals and irrigation channels. CPRs constituted 15% of
India’s total geographic area at 0.31 ha per household and rural India still
depends significantly on CPRs to rear livestock. At the all-India level, 20%
of households depended on CPRs for grazing livestock, 13% collected
fodder from CPRs and only a small percentage (2%) reported cultivation of
fodder on CPRs. Livestock owning communities respond in different ways
when there is a decline or decrease in access to and/or availability of fodder/
water. There could be a shift in species reared: erstwhile pastoralists who
reared cattle, have switched to rearing sheep and goats settled farmers
who reared cattle are today rearing buffaloes and sheep (. They respond
by adjusting the size of their flock such as increasing or decreasing the
numbers of animals in their flock/herd. There may be spatial movements
of migration to “greener pastures” as it were, in search of new areas to
access fodder and water from common property resources beyond the
village, or from harvested private fields on mutually beneficial terms, which
are negotiated with, farmers. The landowners allow the animals to be
penned on their fields and graze on the stubble of harvested crop-residue
in exchange for manure and urine that is valuable for enriching the soils.
Pastoralists with their animals may alternately migrate to forest areas for
extended periods of time. The small peasant, pastoralist or adivasi will
relinquish their animals and become “non–livestock owners”, only when
there appear to be no other avenues to care for their livestock.
Livestock-Land- Crops
Keeping the soils of common and private lands healthy (dung and urine),
providing energy (ploughing, threshing, post harvest oil milling, sugarcane
extraction, transportation) for agriculture, and in turn animals grazing/
browsing on crop residues, natural grasses, leaves, herbs, which also
helps to regulate grass growth and in seeding, is the critical link between
livestock and crops on the small farmers farms, within the larger village
and beyond. Today communities control the genetics of their animals: they
own the germplasm and have the knowledge and skills to manage their
breeds. Communities need access to land, and the freedom to be able to
democratically and collectively govern these spaces towards sustaining
food-farming systems, wherein which livestock continue to play this key

linking role.
However it is this chain in the food-farming system, which is sought to

be broken once and for all. It is these remaining outposts of sovereign
production, genetics, and local markets that intend to be captured by global
capital. Small farmers today are being viewed as “consumers of inputs
and services” , and their labour to be harnessed to serve the interests
of larger supply chains of the “Food Industry”. The recent global interest
to “conserve” indigenous animal genetic resources, has to be understood
withn this larger context; it is largely driven by a wordview that looks at
indigenous breeds as “gene banks” to mine genes and insert them through
biotechnology to boost the breed resilience of high-producing breeds. A
growing class of rich and wealthy investors view indigenous breeds as
another opportunity to “make quick money”, and are investing in huge
tracts of land to farm indigenous breeds.
In the process (as has happened across the world), many small farmers will
begin to specialise in crops/ or animals, many will fall deeper and deeper into
debt traps, and be pushed out of farming all together. Gradually the entire
production base – from land, to breeds, to seeds, to services, knowledge
and markets gets captured by a handful of agri-business companies and
large farmers, pushing small farmers out. This has happened across the
world in the dairy, poultry and pig sectors (see box 1 & 2). These structural
changes in the dairy sector, are already underway, with policies making
it more favourable and profitable for larger and larger farmers/ farms and
capital, to capture the production base (see box 2).
India’s 12th Five Year Plan aggravates the demise of

peasants, towards the capture of food markets by Agri-
Business
The 12th Five Year plan, reads no differently. It re-emphasizes the
industrialisation of Indian Agriculture, this time with a further angle- it
invites Foreign Direct Investment into Agriculture with open arms. It re-
emphasizes the “growth” paradigm for agriculture, by increasing productivity
per unit area of land for enhanced “farm profits”, which is to realized by
“….diversification towards high value crops, horticulture, animal husbandry,
enhanced technology and irrigation infrastructure, access to credit, good

and reliable seeds, enhanced mechanization and improved post-harvest
technology, innovative institutional and contractual arrangements so that
smallholders have the requisite technology and market access..”. This
enhanced productivity per unit acre of land it argues justifies land-transfer
to industry and other non-agriculture uses. Land reforms too envisioned
in the plan far from redistributive justice to landless peasants, facilitates
further consolidation of land in the hands of a few, so as to enhance a
favourable environment for investment. The role of the government and
“public investment” will be to invest in and support farmers to aggregate
into larger platforms (which is termed as farmer producer organisations)
to enable capital formation, attract “private investment” towards securing
“economies of scale”.
The plans for animal husbandry complement the plans for agriculture, and
visualize further intensification, industrialization and commercialization, of
the livestock sector, where the central purpose of animals will be to produce
milk or meat through “breed improvement, enhancing availability of feed
and fodder and provision of better health services, breeding management.
There will also be a focus on conserving indigenous breeds, says the plan.
The National Dairy Plan operational since 2012, financed by the World
Bank and implemented through the NDDB, visualizes supporting what are
termed as “End Implementing Agencies (EIAs), mainly dairy cooperatives
and producer companies, aimed to (i) increase productivity of milch animals
and thereby increase milk production
(ii) provide rural milk producers with greater access to the organised milk-
processing sector.
Reforming Tenancy Laws: “ will encourage leasing in lands by larger farmers to consolidate lands to
invest in modern inputs, reap economies of scale and raise farm productivity. Long term tenancy contracts
will enhance agriculture productivity”.
Land Purchase: Land only for homesteads ( small pieces of land)are to be distributed to women, and all
other government lands will be distributed to groups of landless and women farmers not individually but
groups, which will be facilitated by providing part loan-grants to groups of poor women.
Public Land Banks: Farmers will deposite their fallow lands for fixed periods of time with a Public Land
Bank, which will in turn lease the land to groups of women etc. The farmers who deposit their land will
receive a payment from the Land Bank.
A key aspect of the NDP is to intensify commercial Breeding Services or

Artificial Insemination Services, make available about 900 high genetic
merit bulls for replacement of bulls at graded semen stations and thereby
achieve 100 per cent high genetic bulls.
The National Livestock Mission envisions intensification of production and

marketing of all other species –sheep, goats, pigs, and rural poultry, and
feed and fodder markets.
Ofcourse it also then speaks about conserving local breeds, and their
importance in context of climate change. In the same breath they speak
of high producing breeds, as the mitigating climate change- where high
yielding breeds can be fed concentrates to reduce methane production..
India’s 12th Five Year Plan reflects an emerged global consensus

amongst national governments, Banks, Transnational Corporations
and Multilateral Institutions (World Bank, FAO, IFPRI), backed by their
research studies, that the way forward to meet projected global food
needs, alleviate poverty and meet the Millennium Development Goals, lie
in aggressively enhancing Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture, which
currently contributes 1-2% of total global investment in Agriculture. Global
doublespeak fully recognizes that millions of small and marginal farmers
anchor agriculture and food production in the global south, and see these
millions as investment opportunities. It sees the role of governments as
key to make this investment dream a reality. Government will ally with Big
Business towards in the interests of Global Capital.
Let us not be fooled: Lets act

The plans and programs visualized nationally, only further separate and
alienate small peasants, land, crops, livestock, forests, and water from
each other, towards concentrating the power and control of these in the
FAO scientists (Steinfeld, H) argue that high producing milch animals and industrial systems of
farming generate less co2 per litre of milk yield than small farmer mixed farming systems. This
argument is flawed as it merely takes the total quantity of milk produced and divides it amongst the
total number of cows and the methane they generate. It does not include all the externalities into
their calculations of CO2 emissions : from the lands converted from food crops to feed, the water
consumed to do so, the transportaion of feed, energy expended on processing, manure build up
……. And all the CO2 generated from field to glass..
hands of agribusiness and global capital. Today the biggest threat to small
farmers is not merely the dispossession from their own small land holdings,
but from the idea and practice of the commons, shared knowledge, skills,
and the power to decide upon how they will farm food for themselves and
also to market. The threat to indigenous breeds today, are global and
local policies that are alienating and displacing peasants, pastoralists
and indigenous peoples from their right to land and their autonomy over
local markets. When we who represent and work with indigenous people,
peasants and pastoralists, speak of conservation of indigenous breeds,
we need to remember that its conservation is meaningless unless these
animal genetic resources continue to be in the hands of indigenous and
local communities, who will control the genetics and shape the breeds
towards sustaining food sovereignty.
Given the multiple forces that threaten the future of food farming systems
and livestock within, the resistance too encompasses multiple strategies
of decentralized democratic governance by local communities. It needs
to be re-emphasized here that women within communities leading this
movement at every level from taking decisions to actions, is critical for
rewriting the narrative, and includes:
1) Democratic governance and control by local communities to Land,

Forests, Water bodies, Common lands, Biodiversity, Knowledge
• Resist and organise ourselves to halt the changes in land use which
dispossess adivasis, dalits, pastoralists and small and marginal
farmers from land – common, private, forests …… (investments
in special economic zones, real-estate, Foreign Direct Investment
in Animal Husbandry and Agriculture activities, mining, forestry
plantations, biofuels)
• Use legislations such as Panchayat Raj Act and Panchayat Raj
Act Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA), to exercise collective
decisions around protecting and nurturing resources (land, water,
commons, forests, etc) towards food sovereignty.
• The Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Rights) Act, 2006, for the first time gives legal
recognition to graze animals – in forests, as one of the ten community
rights. Adivasis, pastoralists and other traditional forest dwellers

must exercise their rights to grazing and governing the forests.
2) Re-establishing the linkages between land, crops, local indigenous
livestock breeds, and their cultural and spiritual relationships.
Recognise and Rebuild the central role of cattle and buffaloes in villages
and farmers fields, as providers of energy (draught) and manure.
3) Build resilience to the challenges of climate change and

economies of money by spreading risk through being engaged in
diverse food-farming . Let multiple contribution per hectare of land,
be the parameter and goals of food farming, and not single mono-
product quantities “yield/ ha” be our yardsticks of farming.
Small farmers must grow diverse crops and rear diverse animals to build
resilience and resist being pushed out of farming. Local animal breeds of
goats, sheep, poultry, pigs, …… as appropriate to the eco-region must once
again be present in every farmers house. (eg. Sheep survive best on open
grasslands and not in dense forested regions. Goats survive well in all eco-
regions. It would be foolish to introduce sheep into forested regions, just
because there is a deeply ingrained thinking amongst both development
and conservation activists, that goats are harmful to the environment.
Similarly recognised indigenous breeds merely because they are “good
milk producers”, and good draught animals, must not become the next
mono-cultures. But we have to build on understanding the local context,
and situations, and nurture local diversity…..
4) Meeting the Nutritional and Water needs of animals
• Typically ruminants meet their requirements from grazing on natural

vegetation (trees fodders, grasses, shrubs, legumes, herbs etc),
and agriculture crop residues/ or being fed stored crop-residue (dry
fodder). Crops without a fodder value (tobacco, tapioca), or with poor
nutritive value (rice), or which are potentially toxic (e.g. BT cotton),
impact negatively on a fundamental pre-requisite for good health-
namely “a balanced diet”. This requires macro policy changes at the
level of market, minimum support prices and other public distribution
schemes, that encourage farmers to cultivate and grow food crops
such as millets, pulses, oil seeds and legumes, that yield diverse
crop-residues.
• introducing farmers to agro-silvipastoral practices that nurture

diverse local trees/ shrubs/ herbs with a fodder value, on private
and common lands..
• Promoting ecological agriculture practices amongst farmers, which
will rebuild and strengthen the symbiotic relationship between crops
and ruminants.
• Putting a halt to re-vegetation programs such as cultivating mono-
crop plantations (biodiesel crops jatropha and pongamia pinnata,
eucaluptus,rubber, horticulture trees - which are completely devoid
of fodder value and are being pushed through linking them to
NREGS and other development programs.
• Assured and free access to drinking water (restoring village tanks,
watering ponds, building water troughs with public funds), housing,
hygiene and sanitation. A crossbred dairy animal such as a Holstein
Friesan or Jersey cross requires nearly 4 times as much water (for
drinking and washing and shed cleaning etc) as compared to a local
indigenous cow. In context of the growing water scarcity situations,
it is disasterous to be promoting crossbreds which drain the water
resources.
5) Providing for the Health needs of animals
Reviving indigenous knowledge and practice of management, prevention

and healing, along with putting pressure on the government veterinary
services to continue play their role in public health, preventive health and
treatment. Organise to stop the privatization of government veterinary
services in India, through the creation of paraworkers who are being
expected to replace the government veterinary doctors.
6) Nurturing Knowledge and Skills on ecological farming, indigenous

breeds, management, landuse, breeding, feeding, health, …….
Through learning between elders (women and men) and youth (men and
women).
7) Supporting local markets for the breed and its products
Organising communities to be able to directly link to local consumers

through local markets – dairy, backyard poultry, goats, pigs. Pushing for
government to make public money available to support and nurture these

efforts
Box 2 : Vanishing small farmers: specialize and perish
Box 3 : Dairy Mayhem in India : The Privatizing Trap

9. Background note India’s Climate

Policy for Farmers
by Secretariat , La Via Campesina South Asia
Small farmers can cool the planet and feed the world!
What is climate change: Burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas
for our energy has increased levels of heat-absorbing gases, especially
carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. So, our planet has warmed over one
degree Fahrenheit, and will continue to heat further and faster, as more
of these gases build up. The increased heat temperatures are already
causing erratic weather such as flooding, drought, changing rainfall
patterns etc. There will be a serious impact on agriculture, and agriculture
[green revolution style] is also one of the major contributers of the green
house gases that cause climate change.
Climate change is mainly caused by burning coal, oil [petrol, kerosene

etc] and gas – it is mainly a man made problem. Therefore, massive
industrialization, pollution, highly industrial agriculture, transportation are
all adding to climate change. The major contributers to climate change are
consumerist industrial countries such as the US. However, in developing
countries like India too, the elites are consuming as much as citizens of
the industrial countries, and are therefore contributing equally to climate
change.
We can stop climate change by changing human behavior and

overconsumption of our resources and shifting to clean sources of energy,
reducing consumerism, and shifting to ecological agriculture among other
things. Stopping climate change is a most urgent task facing humanity.
The global community is spending millions of dollars trying to come up
with a plan to stop climate change, however as you will see with the Indian
government’s policy below, their plans are misguided, and are in fact
supporting the very same corporations and consumerist habits that are
the main cause of climate change in the first place. At the same time,
these policies actually harm the poor and vulnerable, including farmers, by
dispossessing them. For e.g. GM seeds are being promoted as a solution
to climate change, but everyone knows that GM crops require more
pesticides, increase debt, displace local seeds and cause climate change.
It is indigenous seeds that are the true solutions. Thus it is up to the people
of India, and especially its farmers, to challenge the government who will
spend millions of Rupees to support the wrong kind of policies in the name
of climate change, when it should be supporting its small farmers instead.
Read below to understand the impacts of climate change on agriculture

and farmers, and also a critique of the Indian climate policy in the area of
agriculture.
India and climate change

The Indian governments vision of development is double digit economic
growth – industrialize and privatize fast, attract foreign investment, move
towards urbanization and increase consumerism in the country. This very
outlook is a problem when it comes to climate change as industrialization
geared towards unsustainable consumption is the root cause behind
climate change. Besides heating the planet, this model is also leading to
the dispossession of the poor in this country – the poor are losing their
resources to private industries – land, water, seeds, education, health
are becoming privatized putting them out of reach of the people for their
survival.
What is needed instead is a development model which is people oriented.

Instead of dispossessing people of their resources, a development
model is needed where the lands, seeds, water remain with the people
so that they can use these resources for their dignified livelihoods and
survival. Instead of pushing agrarian communities out of farming, they
should be encouraged and supported to produce food and make India a
secure country that can produce all its food needs locally using ecological
approaches without relying on imports. Farmers need to be provided with
markets, credit, fair prices, sustainable farming techniques and control
over lands, seeds and resources. This model is called Food Sovereignty –
a concept that was first introduced by the global farmers movement called
- “La Via Campesina” and this model is the peasants solution to global
climate change, unemployment and hunger.
There is no doubt that climate change is a real problem and its effects
are being felt worldwide. In India a lot of research has been conducted
on the impact of climate change and the most vulnerable sectors of our
country are Agriculture and Fisheries. Agriculture is both impacted by
climate change and it also contributes to climate change. But it is the
current green revolution industrial agriculture model using fossil fuel based
chemicals that is contributing to climate change. 30% of the green house
gas emissions come from industrial agriculture, mainly from methane and
Nitrous oxide and Carbon dioxide.
The need of the hour is to phase out the industrial agriculture model that
is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and shift towards low input and no
chemical agroecological methods of farming and traditional knowledge of
farming communities. India already has several successful models where
indebted and chemical farmers have converted successfully to ecological
methods. These models are based on farmers traditional knowledge,
seeds and crop variates that are time tested to withstand all kinds of
environmental stress. One remarkably successful model is the Community
Managed Sustainable Agriculture program run by the government of Andhra
Pradesh in conjunction with womens organizations and local NGO’s where
they have converted 35 lakh acres in the state to non chemical farming.
This model is being scaled up across the country and shows us that it is
possible to convert the entire country to chemical free farming if peoples
institutions are involved and horizontal farmer to farmer training systems
are set up. Across the country there are many farmers practicing such
methods without any government help, Karnataka’s zero budget natural
farming is also one such successful example. It is time to identify and scale
up such models at a fast pace.
Below you will find a brief fact sheet of the impacts of climate change
as well as criticisms of the Indian Governments National Action Plan on
Climate Change.
Impact of climate change

• Rainfall problems: Erratic rainfall in some areas, Mean Kharif Rainfall
to increase, More Frequent Heavy Precipitation Events, Monsoons will
be affected [rainfed agriculture will suffer tremendously] water tables
will fall, floods will increase
• Snow Cover to Contract
• Hot Extremes, Heat Waves to be more Common . Droughts will
increase
• Temperature Rise by ; 1 deg. C ( by 2020) to 3 deg. C (by 2100);
• Rise in Sea Level
Impacts on Indian agriculture:

• Food production will be under threat due to unreliable weather patterns
• Pest attacks will increase significantly and new pests will evolve
• Crop yield will reduce – every 1 degree rise [it has already begun-
and by 2020 temperature will increase by 1 degree] will reduce wheat
production [especially in the Indo Ganga plains] by 4-5 million tons
[study by IARI] – most cereal crops production will go down due to less
water availability quality of produce will decline
• Heat stress will reduce milk production by 10-25%
• Fisheries will suffer – while crops can adapt to climate changes
..animals and fishes cannot. In the case of marine fisheries, it has
been observed already that Sardines are shifting from the Arabian Sea
to the Bay of Bengal, which is not their normal habitat
Impact on farmers
• For no fault of theirs, Indian farmers, like the most marginalized
everywhere, are paying a high price for man-made climate change.
The worst-hit, as usual again, are small holders in marginalized
locations with social disadvantages to begin with. They have the least
resources to deal with the natural disasters like droughts and floods
that are increasing with climate change.
• Reduced productivity and climate impacts will have impacts on farmers

incomes
• Increase in farm expenditures
The Green Revolution model dominant in India is the

main contributer to climate change in agriculture
Current mainstream green-revolution practices of Indian agriculture are
the cause of 30% of climate change. CO2, N20 and Methane are three
of the main Green House Gases emitted from Agriculture and N20 is
the most serious one with a global warming potential 296 times greater
than co2.
• The mono-cropping intensive model focused on cash crops and

grains only and dependent on heavy usage of chemicals is directly
contributing to emissions of green house gases. In India, it is estimated
that 28% of the GHG emissions are from agriculture. 78% of methane
and nitrous oxide emissions are also estimated to be from agriculture.
a g. Application of fertilizer leads to nitrous oxide emissions in high
amounts. Pesticides are made from petroleums [fossil fuel], when
these breakdown they emit carbon into the atmosphere.
• Monoculture model leads to loss of agricultural biodiversity. Biodiversity
is not lost due to over use but because it is not used.
• Also more intensive models use more fossil fuels for machinery like
tractors, harvesters, pumps for irrigation etc.
• Inundated paddy fields are one of the main sources of carbon emissions
- they increase the emissions of methane; Need to shift to less water
intensive forms of agriculture like SRI (Syste of Rice Intensification) in rice.
Another major contributor of GHGs is the burning of crop residues.
In Punjab, wheat crop residue from 5,500 square kilometers
and paddy crop residues from 12,685 square kilometers are
burnt each year. Burning of crop residues also impacts the soil
(fertility). Heat from burning straw penetrates into the soil up
to 1 cm, elevating the temperature as high as 33.8–42.2°C.
Bacterial and fungal populations are decreased immediately.
• Large Dams: Another indirect contribution of agriculture to GHG

emissions comes in the form of large dams. Large dams contribute
18.7% of emissions in India as per an estimate. Total methane
emissions from India’s large dams could be 33.5 million tonnes (MT)
per annum, including emissions from reservoirs (1.1 MT), spillways
(13.2 MT) and turbines of hydropower dams (19.2 MT).
Can Indian Agriculture mitigate climate change? [reduce

carbon emissions?]
Yes – by reducing the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. And by
keeping Carbon in the soil – which is also good for soil fertility. This can
be done by good agroecological practices like mulching, no till, organic
manure etc. Green revolution model releases carbon into the air.
Governments National Action Plan on Climate Change
Background
India had announced a National Action Plan on Climate Change in
August 2008. The action plan was created in a very top down and non-
participatory way, and no consultations were carried out with any civil
society organizations or peoples movements.
The NAPCC proposes to address climate change- related issues in India

through the setting up of eight inter-connected Missions: National Solar
Mission; National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency; National
Mission on Sustainable Habitat; National Water Mission; National Mission
for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem; National Mission for a “Green
India”; National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture and National Mission
on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change.
The mission that concerns Agriculture is “National Mission for Sustainable

Agriculture” and the aim is to make Indian agriculture sustainable.
Farmers Critiques of the NAPCC

• There are no emissions cuts: The NAPCC has mostly adaptive
policies ( I.e what we will do to deal when climate change happens)
– there are no emissions cut goals [also called mitigation – or how

we can control climate change by reducing our green house gas
emissions]. We need to specify emissions cuts goals. Even China
has set up goals for emissions cuts, but Indian government does not
mention it anywhere therefore the entire “action plan” is a wrongly
named and not really achieving anything to curb climate change.
• No focus on traditional knowledge of farmers: The main focus of

any adaptation strategy to climate change needs to value the traditional
knowledge of farmer [how to use available indigenous seeds, crops,
livestock, practices etc] These have a proven track record in adapting
to stress conditions and are already available among farming
communities. These need to be discovered, improved and distributed.
If we dont use farmers indigenous knowledge then it will be lost and
next generation will become dependent on lab produced hybrids,
GMOs etc. Instead, the NAPCC merely pays lip service to traditional
agriculture but its main focus is on improved hybrid and GM varieties
as well as hybrid exotic livestock and fish species.
• ‘Land to lab’ top down extention interventions: The focus is mostly
on the research for new crops based on a top down system of lab
to land extension system. This is hardly enough to combat climate
change and time is short. Furthermore, it ignores the vast knowledge
of crops and methods that farmers already have on the ground. We
need to set up different extension systems with farmers organization
at the center to encourage farmers to share their knowledge with each
other. Waiting for scientists to create crops in labs and then wait for
a top down system to pass them on to farmers is not the solution
when solutions already exist on the ground and need to be scaled
up rapidly. Scientists and extension agents should be trained to learn
from farmers about agroecological farming and work to spread the
methods among other farmers.
• Blind promotion of GM crops: Instead of promoting traditional seeds
and plant varieties that are low input oriented and already available
among seed savers and farmers everywhere, government is promoting
an untested, problematic and expensive corporate technology of GM
crops. Already cotton farmers of India are suffering from the debt burdens
of this expensive and failed technology. The Government should
instead focus on promotion of low input traditional crops like millets and
cut subsidies to chemical fertilizers instead of focusing on GM crops.
• No incentives are provided to organic and non chemical farmers:

Instead of providing huge subsidies to the chemical fertilizer industry,
incentives should be provided to those farmers that are shifting towards no
chemical farming. Subsidies to chemicals should slowly be phased out.
• No meaningful involvement of peoples organizations: It is

important that any climate change adaptation and mitigation
strategy should involve peoples organizations, especially farmers
organizations on the ground to take advantage of the expertise and
organizational capacity of community organizations. Many local NGOs
and farmers organizations already have underway successful projects
of agroecological farming and horizontal extension systems with
farmers at the center for example. The NAPCC should involve such
organizations to learn from their experience and scale up such efforts
and make them partners in the implementation of the action plans.
Farmers organizations should be involved in implementing, planning
and approval of the climate related agricultural interventions.
What farmers movements can demand from the

government:
• Promote sustainable agroecological systems: Shifting to organic/
agroecological farming systems will automatically cut emissions.
Furthermore such systems actually fix carbon into the soil. We need to
demand government to actively phase out from chemical farming by
cutting subsidies to chemical industry and other such incentives and
instead support farmers to shift to non chemical models.
1. Promote resource conserving techniques such as organic zero
till, SRI [system of Rice intensification], crop diversification etc.
[warning: monsanto is also promoting a no-till farming with GM
crops and its round up ready herbicide – this is not what we
are promoting..we are promoting agroecological no till systems

like natural farming for e.g. not tilling the soil reduces CO2
emissions.]
• Promote food sovereignty : We need to localize the food system
and procure all the food for India’s needs from Indian farmers. By not
importing food we are going to cut down on the food miles and the
high emissions from transportation. Also local procurement solutions
should be promoted within India - The PDS system should carry out
local procurement from farmers for local food needs.
• Strong safety net for farmers and agricultural laborers: As part
of adaptation strategies, strong social security nets should be put in
place for the rural households, including with a provision of minimal
incomes, pension, insurance etc. This is already needed for the
farming community and will be important to adapt to climate change
for farming families to cope with climate stress.
• Provide financial and other incentives [subsidies, credit, training,
market etc] to farmers to shift to agroecological methods and for
resource conservation. Farmers are already facing financial difficulty
to carry out famring, society should pay farmers if they are going to
take on additional burden to contribute to cliamte change adaptation
and mitigation.
• Promote traditional farmers knowledge indigenous seeds,
livestock, fish which can be easily accessed by farmers.
• Set up community run seed banks for farmers to have access to
indigenous seeds as well as fodder banks and food banks. Train
local youth to set up seed banks.
• Involve farmers and other peoples organizations to scale up
agroecological methods: We support programs like the Community
Managed Sustainable Agriculture program of Andhra Pradesh
government, farmers organizations and womens groups which is a
farmer central horizontal extension system keeping farmers as trainers
and has managed to convert 35 lakh acres to non chemical farming.
We also support Sikkim governments decision to become a totally
organic state.
• Reject false solutions: like GMOs. Already Bt cotton has created

serious ecological and social problems in Maharashtra and we cannot
label GMOs as solutions to climate change.
• Promote proper risk management: The current risk management
system has already failed farmers who have to keep begging for even
little compensation for serious situations like droughts. We will need a
wide variety of schemes for insurance to weather linked incidences,
livestock insurance, crop insurance.
• Provide reliable weather forecasting information to farmers
• Promote local energy options like bio-gas : This is another way to
prevent methane from going into the atmosphere and instead being
converted to energy for local use. If all the collectible cattle dung in
India is used which is 225 Mt, then it will have a mitigation [cutting
emissions] potential of 512 Mt of CO 2 every year.
What farmers movements can do :-

Having state and national level meetings on the climate change issue to
analyse our governments climate policies so we can prepare our criticism
on it and lobby the government as well as educate our members and
MOBILIZE when needed.
• Lobby the national/state government to promote our positions and to

educate them about models like Sikkim states organic policy or Bhutan.
• Have educational visits of teams of committed farmers to successful
models of agroecology, natural farming
• Produce literature and reading materials on climate change in different
languages
• Promote network of seed savers and expert farmer teachers in
agroecological methods like natural farming and other methods.
10. Restoring Diverse Seeds in the

Hands of Farmers – Importance of
Seed Sovereignty
by Kavitha Kuruganti and Krishna Prasad
Seed is the soul of Agriculture. Locally adapted diversity-based cropping

patterns and timely availability of good quality seed in required quantities
are essential for sustaining farming. In the Indian context, seed has been
an openly shared ‘community resource’ carefully bred, conserved and
evolved over thousands of years by farmers. However, seed today has
been converted into a package; seed choices are determining technological
choices that farmers will end up adopting in growing the seed. For instance,
if a farmer opts for hybrid or high-yielding seed varieties, since they have
been bred in the first instance to be responsive to external inputs like
chemical fertilisers and water, they would demand the same inputs from
the farmer for optimal results. In that sense, hidden in a seed is a complete
takeover of farming choices.
In the name of high yields and profits, farmers are being lured to give
up seeds and seed diversity that were theirs. However, once seeds are
lost physically from a community and knowledge related to such seeds
disappear too, farming itself becomes subservient to external forces. The
farmer is forced to buy what is available, at the price it is available and at a
time when the supplier chooses to make it available. Keeping this control
in the hands of the farming community itself is what we are calling as Seed
Sovereignty.
It’s worth recalling that India is a mega biodiversity hotspot and the agro-
diversity here is phenomenal. Farmers have developed hundreds of varieties
of seeds to suit their agro-climatic requirements, cultural preferences and
livelihood needs. It is said that more than 150000 varieties of paddy alone
existed in this country at one point of time, now only a few thousand remain.
The knowledge related to breeding, how to select good seed from the crop,
how to save it and maintain it, how to treat the seed before sowing the
next season etc., used to be common and open knowledge, sound and
scientific, mostly with women farmers. Seed production in most cases was
not an activity separated from crop cultivation, unlike today, when seed
production is considered a specialised, profit-making activity, with seed
seen as a commodity.
Today, technological advances, market manipulations, industry-supportive

policies and legal systems are the three main strategies that the seed
industry uses to make seed into a ‘commercial proprietary resource’, a
commercial item owned by someone, separating farmers and their crops
from the seeds they require for planting. These mechanisms contribute to
increasing commodification/commercialisation of seed, its corporatisation/
monopolisation and its alienation from farmers. The policy regime favours
such a shift with regard to Seed, and there is no regulatory system/statutory
framework which at this point of time makes farmers and their rights as the
centre of the effort. A small set of farmers who have become contract seed
producers for companies, and a large set of farmers who have become
seed consumers for the seed industry are both losing out in the newer
world of seed.
Increasing monopolies: Industry data from 2009 shows that the top 16
(out of 250-odd) companies control 23% of 10,000-crore seed market;
within this, Monsanto and associates have 40% share. In Cotton seed
alone (worth around 4000 crores), 93% control is with Monsanto in India!
Erosion of diversity: Hundreds of crops and varieties within crops have

disappeared from our farms. Advent of high-yielding seeds and hybrids
has increased this. Disappearance of on-farm diversity has implications on
farmers’ resource management, risks & future research. This impacts farm
livelihoods deeply (for instance, agri-labour demand and supply is closely
connected to diverse cropping).
Undermining farmers’ knowledge & skills: Today’s technological and

policy approaches to Seed are undermining the breeding and seed-
keeping skills of farmers. Further, studies show that de-skilling of farmers

is also affecting their rational choices related to Seed, very often making
seed choices ‘a fad’.
Anti-farmer seed technologies: Seed technologies are actually becoming

anti-farmer in many ways: the fact that newer technologies are toxic; that
control lies elsewhere; that seed breeding is not done in farmers’ growing
conditions or organic conditions and so on, is making the scenario anti-
farmer.
Privatising resource & knowledge: laws & policies around seed favor
privatisation, including creating property with exclusive monopolistic
rights over materials and knowledge. This is in turn supportive of the
profiteering objectives of large corporations and not the surival of millions
of smallholders.
Quality, Affordability & Accountability regimes are missing in regulation,

even as more and more farmers are being pushed towards dependency on
commercial seed traders. There is no regulation of advertising and other
marketing tactics around seed.
Public sector is rapidly withdrawing in seed breeding arena as well

as in seed production and supply, after having enticed farmers towards
external seed sources.
The latest threat is from transgenic crops, which have a close link to rigid
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs); contamination of non-GM crop, rather
than being treated as a violation of the rights of a farmer, is being treated
as an infringement of the IPRs of an external entity!
Seed Sovereignty is greatly threatened at all levels through all the above.
WINDS OF CHANGE ARE BLOWING: ARE YOU YET A

PART OF THE REVIVAL MOVEMENT?
In the last 10-15 years, in many villages around the country, farmers have
started realising the value of Seed. They are rebuilding their relationship
with agro-diversity and have started reviving local varieties and are
setting up mechanisms so that they are self-reliant when it comes to
seed. Farmers preference for traditional open-pollinated locally-adapted

varieties has stemmed from the fact that these have evolved over
time, have strong resilience to local growing conditions, can withstand
vagaries of variable climate, pest and disease attacks and often involve
less intensive management. This means reduced costs too, and lesser
risk of being cheated over a critical input in agriculture. The change in
attitude of farmers has triggered many movements of seed diversity
revival, in situ conservation, seed breeders’ networks etc. The new wave
of revival is looking not just at conservation, but also large scale adoption
of diverse seeds, in addition to farm level characterisation, purification
and improvements in seed. There are instances when scientists from
the establishment have joined hands with such farmers’ networks. For
the organic and natural farming movements, it is important to realise that
diversity-based farming is the core principle that will make such farming
approaches succeed and focusing on seed diversity revival is critical.
WHAT ARE WE SEEKING?

It is in this context that we seek from the government farmer-friendly,
farmer-centric statutory regimes, institutional systems as well as
programmatic interventions to ensure that farmers have control over
and access to diverse, locally suitable, affordable, high-quality seed
and knowledge associated with it, available in a timely manner. If it
is a commercial situation, affordability of seed and accountability of
seed traders also become important.
• When it comes to ownership rights over seed resources, no such

rights should accrue to anyone on any life form – it is also antithetical
to the way agriculture evolved and developed in this country. However,
given that certain statutory regimes have already been put into place
(which work within an IPR regime unfortunately), all forms of prior art
including NBPGR registry should be used pro-actively by concerned
government agencies and authorities to prevent others from seeking
IPRs over farmers’ varieties. Further, an open source seed system
should be set up, that prevents any exclusive rights for anyone using
any farmer-originated material.
• Government should encourage, and invest in farmer-level seed

production of locally suitable, high yielding and other seed (traditional
or public sector bred); if Hybrids are to be encouraged, these should
be bred in organic (farmers’) conditions, with parental lines in the
hands of communities, with skills imparted, after risk assessment in a
holistic fashion.
• Agri-research & extension systems should prioritise farmer-led
participatory varietal selection and breeding programmes.
• Community level seed banks have to be set up and run, through
appropriate village level institutions and adequate financial/other
support.
• Private (commercial seed) sector should work in a statutory regime
that allows the government to regulate not just the quality but price
at which seed is sold, in addition to laying down a strict accountability
regime that includes penalties, compensation and remediation where
required. Regulatory regimes should also pro-actively watch out for
seed monopolies/ oligopolies building up and prevent the same.
Compensation mechanisms should be simple and time-bound and
commensurate with claims and expectations based on claims apart
from covering costs incurred.
• Farming communities all over India should have first priority and
access to all the germplasm collections all over the country.
• All MoUs/PPPs both in research & extension with private seed
corporations should be cancelled immediately by various state
governments and the Union Government. Resources should be
invested on public sector agencies to strengthen them to support
farmers and farmers’ own collectives to make them self-reliant.
• For all those seed technologies which bring in potential environmental
and health hazards, such seed should not be allowed even for open
air trials.
However, what is really needed is diverse seeds and
associated knowledge being brought back into community and
communities becoming seed self-reliant. This requires not just
government interventions but farmers coming forward in large
numbers, realizing the need for upholding seed sovereignty

and ensuring that their own community is self-reliant. Farmers
have to resolve that they will not depend on external seed
sources for their seed requirements; they should invest on
improving their seed breeding and selection abilities again;
they should decide that no farm will have monocrops. Women
farmers are critical for this to happen.
11. Genetically Modified Crops

and Foods in India
Genetically Modified Crops and Foods in India

Genetically Engineered/Modified (GE/GM) crops are organisms created
artificially in labs by forcibly inserting genes of unrelated organisms
into the genetic structure of the plant. Genetically engineered crops
are unpredictable in their character and the plants once released in the
environment are uncontrollable and can never be taken back. There
are several studies indicating the potential risk to human health and
environment- this has resulted in a controversy across the world around
the need for introducing such potentially risky organisms. Many countries
in Europe, Asia and across the world have adopted a precautionary
approach towards GMOs in their regulatory systems.
The Indian government has been forcefully and enthusiastically promoting

GM crops and companies. Bt Brinjal was put on a moratorium only because
peoples movements, farmers and activists were able to put enough
pressure on the government. Now the government is coming up with other
ways to promote GM crops. One of the ways it is doing so is by bringing
in a new BRAI bill – to set up a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of
India, the purpose of which is to give clearance to GM crops in the country.
ICCFM has been strongly opposing the BRAI.
Below you will find a comprehensive overview of the various issues

surrounding GM crops and Indian agriculture.
1. GM in our food & farming systems – why is there a

need for greater concern from policy-makers?
Genetic Engineering is often equated by its proponents with conventional
breeding and is also touted as precision-breeding. As per numerous
experts that this is simply not true – Nature does not have gene constructs
of viral and bacterial genes inserted into other alien organisms and there is
much scientific evidence on the genetic instability caused by the process
of Genetic Engineering. Genetic Engineering, which allows for transfer
of alien genes from one organism to another, for random insertion into
the host organism’s DNA, is a novel technology which is unnatural and
breaks the barriers that exist in nature in unpredictable and irreversible
ways. We would like to strongly argue a case for great precaution before
such technologies are deployed in our farming and food systems – all
agricultural technologies would have a large and lasting impact for the
simple reasons that (a) all of us consume food that comes out of farming,
(b) that a majority of land on this planet is under farming and (c) that a vast
majority of Indians are directly connected to farming for their livelihoods.
Therefore, any technology that will have impacts on health and environment
that too on a large scale, has to be deployed after a careful analysis of
all possible impacts. Further, a precautionary approach should be the
central guiding principle around decision-making. Unlike the technologies
that we have deployed in the past, which are showing up various negative
impacts now whether it is the case of chemical fertilizers or chemical
pesticides, this time around with GM seeds, we are talking about a living
technology which also implies that it is irreversible once released into the
environment. An analysis of the technologies that get deployed shows that
fair apportionment of resources does not happen both at the research level
and at the extension level to sustainable and unsustainable technologies.
Unsustainable technologies, which usually also mean more markets for
some agency or the other, coupled with marketing strategies and financial
power, usually edge out the other technologies, especially safer, more
affordable and sustainable ones, which are not pushed by anyone for the
simple reason that there are no markets involved! There is an urgent need
to re-assess all technological options in front of us in a fair and scientific
fashion before deploying hazardous and unsustainable technologies; there
is need for a policy directive that unsustainable technologies will not be
promoted and encouraged.
2. GM crops & food security claims – how true are

they?
The biggest reason why GM crops are being given a great consideration
by our policy makers is the fear generated by Malthusian arguments
that our food supplies will not be enough for the growing population.
However, as argued by many experts time and again including by eminent
economists like Prof Amartya Sen, food security is not an issue of food
supply alone but is related more to access and distribution issues. Further,
there are many ways by which food production and productivity can be
improved, including by ensuring that land meant for food production is
not diverted to other purposes, that agro-ecological methods like System
of Rice Intensification which conserve resources even as they increase
productivity should be encouraged on a large scale, that output incentives
provided to farmers are bound to increase food productivity and so on.
Time and again, many agencies including the Planning Commission have
been referring to existing ‘technology gap’ between know-how and do-
how to be bridged. Further, it has been aptly stated in the Kisan Policy
that agriculture is not about production and productivity alone – there is a
multi-functionality to Indian agriculture (agriculture as a way of life) that is
often ignored by Malthusian arguments. There are also emerging schools
of thinking which question the very notion of “yield” as defined by narrow
parameters right now, to the exclusion of many other concerns that should
govern the “measurement of yields”.
More important and pertinent to the current discussion is the fact that GM
technology is not meant to improve productivity – technically, it cannot,
since yields are a multi-genic trait and no GM product has been put into
the market anywhere in the world that can increase yields, despite
years of disproportionately high levels of investment on the technology.
Worse, the largest cultivated GM crop in the world, GM (Roundup Ready)
soybean, is shown to have actually decreased yields in countries like the
USA. An attached report called Failure to Yield, gives more information
on how GM seeds are only a red herring when it comes to issues of food
security.
There have been multiple instances in the past when senior policy-makers
in the country have pointed out that with the existing technologies, both
within the NARS and with thousands of innovative farmers across the
country, yields can indeed be increased at the macro-level, by bridging
the technology gap. This requires institutional interventions more than
anything else. There are hundreds of highly successful farmers, from
whom learning can be facilitated to other farmers, provided there is a
willingness to evolve intensive farmer-to-farmer extension models. Some
such models do exist in the country which include the CMSA (Community
Managed Sustainable Agriculture) programme implemented by the Andhra
Pradesh government and programmes around promotion of System of Rice
Intensification in states like Tripura. Therefore, there is an urgent need
to pursue real, lasting solutions for improving farmers’ livelihoods
while increasing productivity as some successful examples have
already demonstrated.
3. Are there no alternatives?

Given that the S&T behind Genetic Engineering is controversial, even
amongst scientists who have specialized in the fields of molecular biology,
biochemistry etc., and given that a majority of countries around the world
have taken a cautious stand, including based on available scientific
rationale, it would only appear prudent that India also take a similar stand.
However, there are no policy frameworks that guide the R & D work, if at
all, on transgenics. The Supreme Court observer in the GEAC, Dr Pushpa
Bhargava had laid down the contours of an ideal regulatory regime and
said that for every GM application that is received on the food/farming
front, a question that the regulators should immediately ask is whether
there are no alternatives to a given problem that this GM product professes
to address and proceed only after a thorough need assessment.
Similarly, there are no policy level guidelines that guide R & D on crops for
which we are the Centre of Origin and Diversity. Brinjal was such a case
and crops like rice, pigeonpea etc., which are in the pipeline also pose
a big question on the future of biodiversity in these crops with their GM
versions.
Today, any person or agency can walk up to the regulators in India for a
permission to tinker with any plant through r-DNA technology, for any novel
trait with any set of genes and move almost inexorably forward towards our
plates. This is obviously unacceptable. There is an immediate need to

assess all the products in the pipeline and stall/stop/reject a whole set
of applications on the simple grounds that there are other alternatives
or that we are the Centre of Diversity for a particular crop. Otherwise,
this would only constitute a diversion of precious resources from much-
needed research on other aspects.
4. The current reality of GM crops – is this what we

need?
Despite all the hype around GM crops as being the only solution for a
majority of problems in modern day agriculture, the reality is that there
are only two “traits” that form the basis of GM crops and their commercial
cultivation around the world today – insect resistant Bt crops and herbicide
tolerant crops (that too mostly tolerant to Monsanto’s brand of herbicide
called Roundup).
Pest management in fact is quite possible without the use of either GM
seeds or synthetic pesticides as large scale experiences around India
and elsewhere show. In fact, Insect Resistant Bt crops have an intrinsic
shortcoming – if a population of insects is sought to be killed by technologies
like synthetic pesticides or Bt crops, it is only natural that the pests will
select for resistance!
When it comes to Herbicide Tolerant crops, which seems to be the trait
that crops have been engineered for in nearly 77% of GM crop cultivation
around the world today, it is quite apparent that this is a technology which
is meant for labourless farming. It increases chemical usage in farming
and has actually resulted in more chemicals being applied in American
farming in the past 13 years, after the advent of GM crops, rather than
reduce chemicals! Further, resistant weeds are posing a major challenge
in several parts of America, as several reports indicate.
A majority of GM crop cultivation to this day is with just one country - the
USA. The desperation of this one country to find markets for its produce
and for its agri-business corporations (for their seeds and proprietary
technologies) is quite apparent, in a world which is increasingly having
more and more areas actually reject GMOs and declare themselves GM-
Free. Most GM product goes into animal feed, biofuels or cotton products
as shoppers avoid eating GM foods in most countries around the world. In

2008 12.2 million hectares of GM crops in the US were used for biofuels
(19.5% of total US GM area and 10% of the global GM area).
This situation has to be kept in mind by policy-makers in India when they

advocate GM crops as a solution – that the technology has been applied
to mainly two applications both of which are unneeded in our context
and that the American need to find more acceptance in countries like
ours is commerce-driven. When the world is so divided on the issue
and when the scientists of the world are also so divided on the matter,
on what basis is India ready to trust the data and defence proffered by
crop developers and move ahead on GMOs? If there are any lessons that
have been learnt from the Green Revolution, they should teach us not to
sacrifice medium and long term sustainability at the altar of short term
gains especially when sustainable solutions do exist.
5. The socio-economic aspects – is this technology

suitable for India?
A majority of GM crops grown around the world are Herbicide Tolerant (HT)
GM crops. In countries like the USA where less than 2% of the population
lives off farming, it is understandable that the agriculture research system
there comes up with technologies like HT GM seeds, even though that
would not necessarily make the technology safe or desirable. A 2002
USDA study which sought to look at GM crop adoption by American farmers
raises a pertinent question to itself – “perhaps the biggest issue raised
by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when
financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative”, it says suggesting
that ‘other considerations may be motivating farmers’ [what is now called
the “convenience effect”] .
However, in a country like India, the very concept of introducing GM crops

poses a big question on the socio-economic implications for the poorest
rural families in the country who earn a substantial part of their livelihood
through de-weeding activity which this technology seeks to replace. The
poorest rural women in India obtain employment through this activity which
HT GM crops will surely decimate, in addition to leaving toxic impacts
behind through the increased use of agri-chemicals.
It seems incomprehensible that the government first seeks to destroy

existing employment potential in Indian farming and on the other hand,
seeks to prop up rural employment by pumping in crores of rupees of
taxpayers’ funds in the form of NREGS and such other programmes. This
is simply not sustainable and we need a vision for farming in India that
creates a win-win situation for agricultural workers and bigger farmers,
even as proper social security measures are put in place for the workers.
6. Farmers’ rights and researchers’ rights – will they be

protected in the face of big corporations like Monsanto
and its IPRs?
GE technology goes hand in hand with rigid IPRs – in fact, it is often seen
that even without the IPRs being enforced legally, an unstated “business
etiquette” around such IPRs secured by big MNCs allows for more and
more exclusive and monopolistic use of this technology.
There are at least two unrecorded instances in India where companies

like Monsanto used their IPRs to prevent public sector researchers in
their breeding programmes and release of varieties to farmers : one is the
initial Bt Cotton development effort by Central Institute of Cotton Research
(CICR) in the late 1990s; another is the effort by UAS-Dharwad to come
up with its own Bt Cotton varieties around 2003. While these instances
remain anecdotal, the government might want to look into this and draw
out lessons.
It is also well-documented by now that Monsanto does not hesitate to sue

and jail farmers in the name of “patent infringement”, in order to secure its
own markets and profits. Attached is a report from Centre for Food Safety in
the USA on this anti-farmer attitude and behaviour of Monsanto. Right now,
there are several anti-trust investigations underway in the USA, undertaken
by the Department of Justice, about its anti-competitive behaviour. A
French documentary on Monsanto and its misdeeds is available in the
public domain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hErvV5YEHkE), which
captures the various ways in which this corporation just chased profits
Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge and McBride, William D., ‘Adoption of Bio-engineered crops’, Agricultural
Economic Report No. 810, Economic Research Service, USDA, May 2002
irrespective of anything else. It is shocking that India, on the other hand,

officially provides several platforms to this profit-hungry corporation to
direct the policies and regulatory frameworks related to agriculture and
to constantly expand its monopolistic exclusive markets at the expense of
poor, hapless farmers. We urge you to urgently look at ways by which
Seed Sovereignty of this country and thereby, food sovereignty,
needs to be protected from corporations like Monsanto.
7. Choices for farmers and consumers – will they have

any left?
It has to be remembered that the choices for farmers get limited not just
through IPR regimes but through market maneuvers of corporations. In
the case of cotton in India today, there are no choices left for farmers since
non-Bt Cotton seed is not available in the markets. No seed company or
public sector corporation is investing in producing non-GM cotton seed.
Nearly 80-85% of the seed in the market is controlled indirectly by just
one corporation – Monsanto – through its proprietary technology being
sub-licensed to Indian companies. If it took only eight years for nearly all
non-GM seed varieties to disappear from the market, after the advent of Bt
Cotton, one can imagine what lies in store for the farmers in other crops. It
has been documented that seed prices are being raised exponentially after
the advent of the GM versions in the market and attached is a report on the
same from the USA. This does not augur well for the crisis-ridden Indian
farmer. A Fact Finding report of the Planning Commission to Vidarbha
found that the rural distress in the region was exacerbated by exorbitantly
priced seed and once farmers lose their physical stocks of seed, they
would be perpetually dependent on corporations like Monsanto and its sub-
licensees for supplying seeds at the prices that they choose. It took a large
battle from Andhra Pradesh government to bring down the prices of Bt
Cotton seed in the country through challenging the royalty charges on the
technology. However, in this battle, it became clear that the governments
have no legal power or means to control seed pricing. Special ordinances
and state level legislations had to be passed by states like Andhra Pradesh
and Gujarat to control Bt Cotton seed price. The Minister for Agriculture in
your government is meanwhile refusing to include seed price control into
regulation in the proposed Seeds Bill.
Farmers’ choices will also be curbed due to the very nature of this
technology to contaminate neighboring crops. Those who wish to remain
non-GM or even organic will have their crops jeopardized due to the new
threat of contamination from others planting GM seeds.
As far as consumers are concerned, their right to safe food and their right
to food of their choice will be jeopardized/violated with the entry of GM
foods. In a country where the vast majority of food is consumed in open
conditions (not packed or packaged), labeling cannot be a real solution for
upholding consumers’ right to informed choices.
8. American interference in India – will the USA allow a

similar interference by India?
It is very clearly apparent, on records, that the USA which has a huge
vested interest in trying to push GMOs into other countries (with India
being the most prominent of these battlegrounds) is being allowed to tweak
the regulatory systems in India in favor of the industry, in the name of
harmonization of guidelines, laws etc. Analysts are pointing out that the Indo-
US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA) is more about such regulatory
interference than bringing about a second green revolution in India. An
initiative of this sort should have been debated in the Parliament, given that
it has implications for millions of farmers and given that not enough critical
investigation has happened into the lessons we should learn from the first
Green Revolution. In the case of Bt Brinjal too, regulatory committees are
being tilted by pro-GM people who are part of various USAID-supported
projects which leaves very little scope for independent assessments.
9. The regulatory regime: should any more approvals

come out of this?
The current regulatory regime in India is ridden with various problems. It
is shocking that with the existing shortcomings which clearly demonstrate
that scientific, pro-people, democratic, transparent and independent
decision-making is next to impossible given the current regulatory regime,
that India is still continuing to give approvals for open air trials and for
various applicants to move from stage to stage with their R&D efforts.
Much has been already written and said about the woeful inadequacies of
the regulatory regime in India and why all approvals of GMOs in should be
stopped immediately.
10. Now, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of

India (BRAI) draft Bill…
While much has been said and articulated about the problems with the
current regulatory regime, the proposals to replace it with a Biotechnology
Regulatory Authority of India are worse. A version of the draft Bill which
has apparently been sent to the Cabinet before being tabled in the
Parliament is now available in the public domain and the objectionable and
unacceptable shape and components being given to the BRAI has evoked
much sharp reactions all around. An attachment here talks about what the
ideal regulartory regime should be like, in the form of a National Biosafety
Protection statute, and the objections around the BRAI proposals.
11. The health and environmental implications of GM

foods:
It has to be remembered that very few studies on chronic impacts of
GM foods actually exist and this was a big shortcoming in the case of
safety assessment of chemical pesticides too – today, many thousands
around the world are paying a heavy price for this lack of assessment of
chronic adverse effects of such toxins in our environment and food. The
same mistake is being committed, knowingly, in the case of GM foods
unfortunately.
While the technical implications of this imprecise and random insertion of

alien genes creating changes and instability in the host genome which
then manifest themselves as health and environmental implications at the
organism and eco-system level are documented through various studies,
a point that is worth noting is that not enough resources are allotted for
generating more scientific findings on such impacts. Much of the research
that is taken up on GMOs is taken up by crop developers and in fact,
it has come to light recently that research of an independent nature is
actively discouraged by placing curbs on access to seed materials. A
Nature Biotechnology (October 2009) article says that “it is no secret that
the seed industry has the power to shape the information available on
biotech crops…commercial entities and their ownership of the proprietary

technology allows them to decide who studies the crop and how”.
There are several instances where independent scientists’ research

funding was cut off or where they even lost their jobs soon after they
publicized their findings which showed adverse impacts from GMOs. With
very little resources flowing into such independent research and where
researchers who are reporting adverse findings are intimidated by critics
and face repeated and orchestrated attacks (GM crops: Battlefield, Nature,
September 2009), it is obvious that generation of more findings of an
independent and rigorous nature in itself is a task before proceeding further
on this controversial technology. In fact, given the existing evidence, a
precautionary principle-based approach is the only way forward.
It should also be remembered that the situation with GM crops is such

that apart from the biosafety concerns flowing from the S&T of genetic
engineering, issues around trade security, socio-economic implications and
farmers’ rights etc., should also form an integral part of impact assessment
of the technology.
12. No liability regime right now

India does not have a liability regime right now to make the crop developer
liable for any damage including contamination of non-GM crops. Without
such a liability regime being in place, no further approvals should be
provided on any product to move forward in the pipeline, especially related
to deliberate environmental release of GMOs.
13. Lessons from Bt Cotton in India

The Bt Cotton cultivation experience in India over the past eight years
has many valuable lessons to teach policy makers, regulators, farmers
and consumers of the country, if we choose to pick them up in pursuit
of sustainable development objectives. (a) It has been shown time and
again that the Bt technology is unpredictable and the very mixed results
over years, locations and hybrids are there for everyone to see. In those
places where results have been good, deeper analysis points to good seed
source (germplasm into which the Bt gene has been backcrossed), good
monsoon years, higher inputs in the form of water and nutrients etc. The
technology has failed in many areas which are resource-poor in terms of
soils, irrigation as well as farmers’ ability to provide inputs. (b) Pest and
disease ecology has changed in cotton in unpredictable ways. Secondary
pests are emerging into major pests in several places. (c) Impacts on soil
are being observed and reported by farmers and there is increased use
of chemical fertilizers; a senior agriculture scientist of India had predicted
that with even a 6% expansion of GM crop land in the country, there
would be a doubling of chemical fertilizer demand and this brings its own
problems including that of public financing of an unsustainable input. (d)
Stress intolerance is found to be higher on Bt Cotton than on other non-
GM cultivars. This has implications for risks and vulnerabilities of our
resource-poor farmers. (e) Bt Cotton has left its impacts on animals which
have grazed on the crop residues in different parts of the country including
from consumption of Bt Cotton seed cake etc. Animals have either died
or fallen sick after consuming Bt Cotton and this phenomenon though
acknowledged by some officials, has not been investigated scientifically
and systematically by concerned agencies to this day (f) Agricultural
workers have also reported allergies after working in Bt Cotton fields and
media and NGO reports exist from different states about this phenomenon
which is also uninvestigated to this day. (g) On the regulatory front, Bt
Cotton has repeatedly showcased the regulatory incapabilities of India,
right from the time that illegal proliferation of unapproved Bt Cotton was
first noticed in 2001. Regulatory failures were not just on the biosafety front
but in terms of monitoring, reviewing, transparent and scientific decision
making and so on. (h) State governments also found out through the tough
way that there are no legal mechanisms available to them to regulate seed
marketing, seed advertising, seed pricing and for liability and redressal for
failures.
Bt Cotton has often been cited as the reason for the impressive yield
increases in Indian cotton over the past few years. However a careful
analysis of various factors, mostly culled out from official records of state
governments, shows that other reasons would have contributed to the
success of Cotton and without really factoring them in, GM proponents
are hyping up the success of Bt Cotton. Attached is a paper published in
Economic & Political Weekly on the myth around Bt Cotton and yields of
Cotton in India. It is surprising that no one has boldly asked as yet why
such dramatic results have not come out of other countries (including the
USA, which continues to heavily subsidise its farming) that have adopted
GM crops if what is being touted about Bt Cotton in India is indeed true!
Finally, the recent admission by Monsanto about pink bollworm developing

resistance to its first-generation Bt Cotton and urging farmers to adopt
Bollgard II which gives it a possibility of raking in more money and the
counter statement provided by a public sector body like Central Institute of
Cotton Research (CICR) questioning the findings even as it is struggling
to find markets for its own single-gene Bt Cotton need to be investigated
systematically before moving further. A Dharwad agriculture university
study also shows that bollworms are able to survive, mate and proliferate
on Bt cotton.
14. Real, lasting solutions lie elsewhere – why are we

not investing on them and why are we ignoring them?
There is a growing realization worldover, as the debate about the future
course of agricultural research and extension as well as the future course
of farming itself on this planet has unfolded on several platforms, that
GM crops are not the solution for many of the current problems related to
food and farming and certainly not for the real problems of the small and
marginal holders of developing countries.
An international scientific research process along the lines of the IPCC

for Climate Change was initiated in 2003, supported by the World
Bank and the UN and came up with its report in 2009. The IAASTD –
the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Technology for Development – which ran between 2003 and 2008,
involving over 400 scientists worldwide, was an ambitious attempt to
encourage local and global debate on the future of agricultural science and
technology. This global team of 400 experts from different fields, including
social scientists, went on to challenge the conventional gatekeepers of
agricultural knowledge. The process of IAASTD was initiated ‘to assess
agricultural knowledge, science and technology in order to use it more
effectively to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and
facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable
development’. The IAASTD report was endorsed by 58 governments

including India. This report represents the work of the largest research effort
to date on the history and future of modern agriculture. IAASTD endorsed
a renewed emphasis on technologies that have proven track records for
improving yield, reducing external inputs into agro-ecosystems, preventing
the conversion of more land for agriculture and helping agriculture to
improve the lives of poor and subsistence farmers.
The final report of the IAASTD concluded that the business-as-usual

model of prevailing industrial agriculture cannot meet the food needs of
the 9 billion who are expected to inhabit Planet Earth within a few decades.
In particular the IAASTD report emphasised that food security requires
a multi-functional approach to agriculture and ownership structures --
particularly protecting local knowledge systems that have been passed on
from one generation to the other over millennia.
The main messages of IAASTD include:
• alternative production systems, notably those based on agro-

ecological methods, can be competitive with or superior to
conventional and genetic-engineering-based methods of productivity;
• these alternative methods, moreover, not only lower the environmental
impacts of agriculture, they may reverse past damage;
• an emphasis on farmer-initiated and conducted innovation, research
and manipulation of biotechnologies is a proven method for
achieving higher levels of food security and has collateral benefits
of building social capacity, community independence and ongoing
local research and knowledge sharing;
• to capture the benefits of alternative production systems, the
world must readdress the imbalance in funding between genetic
engineering and agro-ecological research, must establish workable
policies for farmer participation and agree to eliminate developed
country subsidies for agriculture intended for export.
These approaches are also ones which will contribute to mitigation as
well as adaptation in the era of climate change, as opposed to intensive
agriculture models.
It is time that India, which has more stake in conserving and improving its
agriculture than most other countries given the rich heritage of farming
in this country and given that millions of lives are directly dependent
on agriculture, re-looked at its misplaced emphasis on transgenics and
promoted farmer-centric agro-ecological models of farming.
We urge you, in the light of all the above arguments which clearly point out
the many adverse implications of transgenics and question the very need
for this technology in our farming, to put a complete stop on all open air,
deliberate releases of GMOs in our food and farming, a ban on import of
any GM foods into the country and a complete re-hauling of our vision for
Indian farming in the pursuit of sustainable development for all Indians.
12. Seeds Bill- Main Issues from

Farmer’s Perspective
Seeds Bill- Main Issues from Farmer’s Perspective

The Seed Bill 2004 is a pending before the Indian parliament. This bill
seeks to regulate the quality of seeds sold commercially in India – i.e. sold
under brand names for profit. This bill was brought into being because of
the changing face of the Indian seed industry with many seed companies
and technologies entering Indian agriculture like GMOs and hybrids
-already some crops like cotton, maize and sunflower are totally controlled
by very few companies. The bill aims amongother things to ensure that
Indian farmers receive quality seeds from companies and commercial
seed sellers.
On the face of things this bill might seem like it is really great for farmers
as it seeks to save them from spurious seeds, however in reality the bill
lacks teeth and is letting companies off the hook as there is no control on
seed prices –which is the other major issue besides quality when it comes
to company seeds. Also in case company seeds fail to perform then the act
asks farmers to approach Consumer courts –this is a weak and unfeasible
provision. There is no provision to control huge company royalties – letting
seed companies have one of the highest profit margins compared to any
other industry. State governments as well do not have powers to regulate
these companies in their states due to the current weakness of the laws.
In AP for example, the state government has been taken to court various
times by seed companies on charges of harassment when the state
government tried to regulate exorbitant prices, royalties and seed failures
to protect their farmers.
The Seeds Bill is an important proposed legislation to regulate seed

companies, however without price controls of commercial seed varieties,
this bill is pointless.
Very Basic Features of the bill:

• Central seed committee (CSC): A CSC will be set up in Delhi and State
seed committees will be set up in the states to implement this bill.
• Registration: There will be compulsory registration of kinds or varieties
of seeds. Farmers are exempted from registering and farmers can
exchange, replant seeds. Also has a provision that no transgenic
variety of seed would be registered unless cleared under the provisions
of the Environment (Protection) Act
• Seed Analysis and Seed Testing: Central and State Seed testing
laboratories will be set up to test the seeds. Foreign certification labs
are also allowed if approved by the Indian government.
• Import and Export of seeds: All imported seeds have to be registered.
Imported seeds will be cleared based on results of trials conducted in
foreign seed testing agencies.
• Penalties: Financial and jail sentence penalties are included. They
were 30,000 RS for selling fake, spurious and sub standard seeds.
These have been increased after lobbying by MPs and civil society to
5 lakh and one year in jail.
• Compensation: Farmers will be compensated if the seeds are fake,
fail, poor quality.
MAIN ISSUES AND FARMERS DEMANDS:-

• Price control and regulation should be with state government: The Seed
Bill 2010 does not propose any price controls. Farmers must be able
to purchase seed at an affordable price. This is very important since
the output price (or the procurement price) is fixed by the government,
and often do not take into consideration the prevailing market price for
seed. The procurement price therefore does not reflect the true cost
of seed. At present, companies are charging prices at will and that too
without any rationale. Tomato seed price for instance varies between
Rs 475 to Rs 76,000 per kg, and Capsicum seed price between Rs
3,670 to Rs 65,200 a kg. More recently, seed companies have taken
the Andhra Pradesh government to the High Court challenging its
decision to regulate prices and royalty. Therefore, the function of the
Seed Committee under the Seed Bill must include power to decide on
price and price controls (including royalties). Since some seeds are
already being removed from the Essential Commodities Act, it is even
more essential that the state have the power to fix prices.
• Penalties proposed should be much stronger: Since the penalties
have been mild, the Government has failed to check the menace of
fake, and sub-standard seeds. Providing a maximum fine of Rs 30,000
for selling seeds not conforming to the laid-out standards is simply not
enough. The cabinet has now approved to increase penalty to one year
and Rs. 5 lakh on 20th Oct 2010 “misrepresentation/ or suppression
of facts, procedural violation or non-performance of the seeds “without
intention”.
• State governments should have power to license: While seeds may
be registered with the National Register of Seeds, it is imperative that
State Governments must be given the authority to decide on which
of these registered seeds can be licensed to be used in their State,
Clause 12 should be amended accordingly.
• Compensation and Compensation Committee: According to the bill
farmers have to approach the consumer protection act for compensation
– this is hardly possible for a poor farmer with no legal knowledge or
resources. The proposed amendments by Sharad Pawar do ask for the
creation of a compensation committee but we demand that localized
committee should be appointed by the state government in a manner
which is easily approachable by the farmer and so that he can receive
quick and reasonable compensation within a time frame of 60 days.
Therefore Section 20 of the Clause 2 should be amended accordingly.
Also compensation must include the cost of the expected gains from the
seeds that the farmer had planted and not just the cost incurred by the
farmer.
• Import of seeds: We should not accept the tests by any foreign

certification agencies. The imported seeds should be tested on Indian
soil and also produced on Indian soil. The imported seeds should not
only match up to the environemntal standards of India but also live
up to the claims of performance. e.g. if companies claim that yields
will increase then they have to prove so on Indian soil itself before
registering and selling.
13. Biotechnology Regulatory

Authority of India Bill (BRAI BILL)
Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill (BRAI BILL)
The BRAI bill aims to set up the BRAI – a government body that will
give fast track clearance to GMOs.
Here are some of the problems with this bill:

• Regulator acting as promoter! This bill accepts that GMOs are
okay. There is no space for debate whether GMOS are needed
or not needed in India. BRAI will take decision making on GMOs
away from the ministry of environment and forests and pass it on
to the Ministry of Science and Technology, a ministry which has
been promoting biotechnology and has no concern for human and
environmental heath or social consequences. There is a strong
body of evidence on the health, environmental and socio economic
impacts of genetically modified crops. We need a regulation to
ensure biosafety and not to blindly promote the use of modern
biotechnology. Real solutions for today’s agricultural problems are in
ecological farming and a fair economic system and not in GM crops.
• Conflict of interest : BRAI sits inside the Ministry of Science and

technology creating serious conflict of interest. Dept of Biotechnology
– under the Ministry of Science &Technology, has the mandate of
promotion of GE crops. DBT funds several GE crop development
projects using public funds and is the nodal agency for redirecting
funds from foreign governments to GE crop development projects.
• No proper scientific testing needed: The BRAI says nothing about

longterm independent assessments of GM crops. When there is
already a huge body of scientific evidence that GM crops can be
very dangerous to health and the enthronement, it is even more
important that the government take a precautionary approach and
carry out serious long term independent studies before even thinking
of approval. On the contrary BRAI allows even non accredited labs
to submit bio-safety assessments, which means that companies that
want to benefit from the approval of their GM crop, can easily carry out
their own assessments, through any laboratory and then submit to the
government for approval.
• Undemocratic body: The bill proposes a centralized, technocratic
decision making authority with no scope for democratic intervention.
The apex authority is the BRAI with a chairperson and two members,
all scientists with either a biotech or a health background – no one
from environment or agriculture background.
• Sections of the bill super cede the Right to Information Act and place
the decision to disclose information for public interest with the BRAI
instead of the Central Information Commission or the Delhi high court
as required by the RTI act 2005. This means that only if BRAI thinks it
appropriate will information be given to the public. This would kill any
informed public debate on GE crops in future, as citizens would not
even be able to use the RTI to get information! A democratic debate
was one of the main reasons that helped in stopping Bt Brinjal in India
in 2011.
• Unconstitutional: BRAI gives no role to state governments in the
approval of GM crops even though agriculture is a state subject under
the Indian constitution. The bill states that the center should become
the supreme authority on GMOs so that it can fast track clearances “in
public interest”. This is rather ironic, that the public has no role to play
to decide what is in its own interest!
• Socio economic assessments missing: Socio economic studies for
assessing GM crops are not part of the existing regulations. They don’t
find any mention in the new one either. Given that GM crops comes
with patent tags and have been found to further corporate control on
agriculture this will have a serious impact on a country like India where
the majority is dependent on the farming sector.
• BRAI kills consumer choice and promotes GE polluters as it has no
provision for labeling of GE crops, and there is no liability to the crop
developer if there are any economic losses caused to farmers due to
GM contamination of their crops.
Demands of the Indian Coordination committee of

Farmers Movements:-
• We need a Bill that will protect our health and environment and that is
what the Indian Environmental Protection Act 1989 Rules promise -
not just changes in biotech regulatory authority. The primary purpose
of the bill itself should be questioned.
• We need a different regulatory process to approve GMOs, which is
more democratic and not just scientific. The approval process must
remain with the ministry of environment and forests.
• Consultations with the public- farmers groups, consumers, health and
environment experts etc must be mandatory.
• Independent evaluation must be done and not evaluation by biotech
companies themselves.
• Process should be transparent. Information should be provided to
public. In its current form certain info will be given under RTI only if the
BRAI authority thinks it is necessary.
14. What is La Via Campesina?
Unity among peasants, landless, women farmers and

rural youth
La Via Campesina is a spanish term for “the peasants way”. It is the global
movement which brings together millions of peasants, small and medium-
size farmers, landless people, women farmers, indigenous people,
migrants and agricultural workers from around the world. It defends
small-scale sustainable agriculture as a way to promote social justice and
dignity. It strongly opposes corporate driven agriculture and transnational
companies that are destroying people and nature.
La Via Campesina comprises about 150 local and national organizations

in 70 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, it
represents about 200 million farmers. It is an autonomous, pluralist and
multicultural movement, independent from any political, economic or other
type of affiliation.
In India, the members of La Via Campesina are Karnataka Rajya Raitha

Sangha, Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU), Tamila Vyavasaigal Sangam (TVS),
Kerela Coconut Farmers Association. SICCFM (South Indian Coordination
Committee of Farmers movements) which has some other movements
as members such as Adiva Gotra Mahasabha of Kerela are also closely
associated with LVC in India. The network of the Indian farmers movements
that are part of LVC in India is called Indian Coordination Committee of
Farmers Movements (ICCFM).
A movement born in 1993

A group of farmers’ representatives – women and men- from the four
continents founded La Via Campesina in 1993 in Mons, Belgium. At
that time, agricultural policies and the agribusiness companies were
becoming globalized and taking over global agriculture, markets, and all
other resources – land, seeds, water. Small farmers needed to develop
and struggle for a common vision. Small-scale farmers’ organizations also
wanted to have their voice heard and to participate directly in the global
and national decisions that were affecting their lives. The aim of LVC
was to unite all the different national and local farmers’ movements into
one strong voice at the global level, to challenge international level neo-
liberal economic policies that were directly impacting national level policies
across the world.
La Via Campesina is now recognized as a main actor in the food and

agricultural debates. It is heard by institutions such as the FAO and the UN
Human Rights Council, and is also broadly recognized among other social
movements from local to global level.
Golbalizing hope, globalizing the struggle!

La Via Campesina is built on a strong sense of unity and solidarity between
small and medium-scale agricultural producers from the North and South.
The main goal of the movement is to realize food sovereignty and stop
the destructive neo-liberal process. It is based on the conviction that small
farmers, including peasant fisher-folk, pastoralists and indigenous people,
who make up almost half the world’s people, are capable of producing food
for their communities and feeding the world in a sustainable and healthy
way.
Women play a crucial role in the Via Campesina work. According to the
FAO, women produce 70% of the food on earth but they are marginalized
and oppressed by neo-liberalism and patriarchy. The movement defends
women rights and gender equality at all levels. It struggles against all forms
of violence against women.
Defending Food Sovereignty

Via Campesina launched the idea of “Food Sovereignty” at the World Food
Summit in 1996. This idea has now grown into a global people’s movement
carried by a large diversity of social sectors such as the urban poor,
environmental and consumer groups, women associations, fisher-folks,
pastoralists and many others. It is also recognized by several institutions
and governments.
Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate

food produced through sustainable methods and their right to define their
own food and agriculture systems. It develops a model of small scale
sustainable production benefiting communities and their environment. It
puts the aspirations, needs and livelihoods of those who produce, distribute
and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the
demands of markets and corporations.
Food sovereignty prioritizes local food production and consumption. It

gives a country the right to protect its local producers from cheap imports
and to control production. It ensures that the rights on lands, territories,
water, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those
who produce food and not with the corporate sector. Therefore the
implementation of genuine agrarian reform is one of the top priorities of the
farmer’s movement.
Food sovereignty now appears as one of the most powerful response to

the current food, poverty and climate crises.
A decentralized structure
Via Campesina is a grassroots mass movement whose vitality and
legitimacy comes from farmers’ organizations at local and national
level.
The movement is based on the decentralization of power between 9

regions of the world. The coordination among the regions is taken up by
the International Coordinating Committee which is composed of one
woman and one man for every region, elected by the member organizations
in the respective regions. The international secretariat rotates according
to the collective decision made every four years by the International

Conference. It was first in Belgium (1993-1996), then in Honduras (1997-
2004) and it is currently based in Indonesia until 2013.
The movement is funded by the contributions of its members, by private

donations and by the financial support of some NGOs, foundations and
local and national authorities.
Join the action! We mobilize on major global trade summits,

climate change summits, food related summits to push our position
to protect small farmers and food. Some important dates are:
8 March: International Women Day -La Via Campesina joins women

movements and social movements from around the world to demand equal
rights for women.
17 April: International Day of Peasant’s struggle- Hundreds of direct

actions, cultural activities, conferences, film screenings, community
debates and rallies are organized by a wide variety of groups, communities
or organizations.
10 September: International Struggle Day against the WTO-

Commemoration of the sacrifice of Mr. Lee Kun Hae, a Korean farmer
who stabbed himself to death during a mass protest against the WTO
in Cancun, Mexico in 2003. He was holding a banner saying “WTO Kills
Farmers”
Visit our website: www.viacampesina.org
Visit the south Asian La Via Campesina blog at: http://lvcsouthasia.

blogspot.com/

2013 Farmers Handbook Food and Ag Politics India ICCFM PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2013 Farmers Handbook Food and Ag Politics India ICCFM PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Handbook on Some

Political Issues surrounding

Indian Coordination Committee

1 What is Food Sovereignty by La Via Campesina 1

5 Consequences (of land grab) for agriculture 30

8 Understanding Livestock in context of Food 46

9 Background note India's Climate Policy for 59

1. What is Food Sovereignty by

Small and medium farmers, fishworkers, pastoralists and rural people

What is food sovereignty

2. Agrarian Reform: A genuine agrarian reform is necessary which gives

2. Farmers’ Income Guarantee Act

by: Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) 1

The National Farmers’ Commission stated, “Progress in agriculture should

Governments spend thousands of crores every year in the name of

We must demand for a Farmers’ Income Guarantee Act which assures

2. IMPLEMENTING FARMERS’ INCOME GUARANTEE

2.1 Farmers Income Commission: Ensuring living incomes for all

• A statutory permanent Farmers Income Commission should be

• Income assessment of farming households should be conducted

• So far, we have a Price Support mechanism for farmers in our country

To operationalize this principle, a Price Compensation system should be

The Price Compensation mechanism has two clear advantages: (a) It

2.3 Reduce Cost of Cultivation

• Promote low-cost sustainable agriculture: Sustainable models with

2.4 Institutional and Infrastructure support for Storage, Marketing,

• In order to strengthen the farmers’ position to negotiate the

Loss of crop and livestock due to natural disasters such as cyclones,

2.6 Producer Bonus for Rainfed and Ecological Agriculture

A Producer Bonus should be given to farmers practicing rainfed and

Farmers Income Guarantee is not a favor to India’s farming community,

Annexure 1: Economic Situation of Farmers

Annexure 1: Economic Situation of Farmers

<0.01 Landless 1380 2297 36 %

0.01-1.0 Sub marginal 1633 2390

1.0-2.5 Marginal 1809 2672 31 %

2.5-5.0 Small 2493 3148 17 %

5.0-10.0 Semi-medium 3589 3685 10 %

10.0-25.0 Medium 5681 4626 6%

>25.0 Large 9667 6418

Total 2115 2770 All farmers

Source: Report “On Conditions Of Work And Promotion Of Livelihoods In

Annexure 2: Inadequate Minimum Support Prices

Annexure 2: Inadequate Minimum Support Prices

Jowar A.P, Karnataka, M.P, Maharashtra & Tamil Nadu

Bajra Gujarat, Haryana, U.P, Maharashtra

Maize A.P, H.P, Karnataka, M.P, Rajasthan & U.P

Ragi Karnataka, Tamil Nadu

Tur [Arhar] A.P, Gujarat, Karnataka & Orissa

Moong A.P, Maharashatra, Orissa & Rajasthan

Urd M.P, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan & Tamil Nadu

Gram Haryana, Rajasthan

3. Free Trade and Indian Agriculture

However in spite of its crucial importance, relative neglect of agriculture

enjoy very little direct subsidy on agriculture. There are 5 estimates of

A. Dabbling in International Trade: Livelihood & Food

1. Globally, value and share of agricultural trade is lower and is only

sufficiency in food. Unlike some food importing nations who does

B. Entry of Multilateral and Bilateral Trade Agreements

The World Trade Organisation and the Agreement on Agriculture

India became a member

• Countries agreed to negotiate on three pillars, namely, market

113.1%. In spite of a high rate, fixing maximum tariffs has meant