Gobind Thukral

PUNJAB Farmers Commission has done what was expected from a state sponsored commission. It has kept to the status quo telling farmers to keep sowing wheat and paddy, using biochemical fertilisers and pesticides and other chemicals as the country’s food security demands it . The Commission chairman, Dr G.S. Kalkat maintains with zeal of neo converts that if farmers shift to organic farm practices there would be shortfall of 20 per cent in food production and the country’s food security would suffer. “We shall be compelled to allow multinationals to sell us wheat etc. This is dangerous”, he maintains. He offers a myopic view of organic farming and the benefit which the growers and the consumers of farm products can draw. Why should a sensible expert who comes from a farmer’s family do so is mystifying indeed?

“We maintain that organic farming cannot be adopted as a principle for the entire area.” he asserts. Why so because the farm manures availability is not sufficient. This would mean he is per se not against organic farming [He loves to eat food grown through organic practices] and arguments are only invented to oppose it. This is not fair for a Padma Bhushan awardee of his standing.

Organic farmers, scientists and well known campaigners who met at the Panjab University the other day strongly argued with facts and figures that the recommendation made by the Commission are not only flawed, but also mischievous as these were catering to the multinationals who supply chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals to control pests, weeds and insects. These hit at the very basis of organic farming being accepted worldwide.

Kavitha Kuruganti from International Institute of Sustainable Agriculture thought that the excessive use of chemicals in farming, the water in Punjab has become contaminated. Water resources are depleting and productivity level has stagnated. "Organic farming increases productivity by more than 50 per cent. At present the returns on agriculture are decreasing. Farmer suicides have become common as debts are increasing,” could we disagree with this assessment. Could not the heavy subsidy and import bill worth crores of rupees on fertilizers and other chemical be saved?

Discussing anomalies in the report, Dr O P Rupela, Principal Consultant, UN-FAO debunked the thesis that 17 animals per hectare would be required to meet the nitrogen need of the soil, while there are only two animals per hectare in Punjab. He quoted farm studies and experience of organic farmers including his own to assert in addition to dung, farmers can use green manure, multiple cropping and other improved techniques to supply enough nutrients to land. We can get more production, at least 10 to 20 per cent more production and chemical free health food. Since cost of production is reduced and farmers get more return on their produce, there is increased earning.

Farmers from Punjab narrated their real experiences. Vinod Jiani from Fazilka claimed that since 2005 he was cultivating wheat, paddy and cotton besides fruit on a 130 acre land without using any chemicals at all. His profits have gone up and his quoted as an example. Same way Rajbir Singh from the Pingalwra Amritsar said that on a 40 acre plot, he was growing everything as per Nanak Kheti, natural farming. Gurtej Singh from Mahilpur, a small farmer said his yields from a four acre plot have increased by 20 per cent and anyone can and see it. Kirpal Singh from Ludhiana district and farmers from Chaina village near Mansa narrated their happy experiences. Why can not the Farmers Commission that is costing big money to the public exchequer find out from these farmers?

Punjab has just 2.5 per cent area of the total agriculture land in India and it consumes nearly 18 per cent of the pesticides in the country. Moreover the cotton belt of Malwa comprises nearly 15 per cent of the area of Punjab and consumes 70 per cent of the pesticides. The agrochemicals and particularly pesticides are not only impacting the ecology and environmental health, but are also taking away economic self-reliance of farmers.

On an average in Punjab, farmers are spending Rs 5,000 on chemical inputs per acre annually and in the Malwa cotton belt farmers are spending Rs 7,000 in normal conditions. Director of Kheti Virasat Surendra Singh, who quoted State Farmers’ Commission and PAU studies to show how agriculture was in the middle of a maelstrom, with its soil losing fertility wondered why the Farmers Commission says that organic farming does not lead to high crop yields and is not in the interests of the food security country. Agrochemical centric agriculture has taken centre stage in the country's planning and perception. Punjab has become most vital component of this chemical-based agriculture system.

During last five decades, India has increased the consumption of pesticides from 154 MT in 1953-54 to 73,000 MT in 1994-95. Similar patterns were followed in Punjab, which became the biggest consumer of technical grade pesticides in the country. Punjab has highest per hectare usage of pesticides, 923 grams and chemical fertilizers 192.5 kg, in India.

According to a Punjab Agricultural University study done by Prof Sukhpal Singh, Punjab farmers are spending 44 per cent of total loans on agriculture inputs and 12 per cent on farm machinery. This has pushed most of the farmers into a debt trap, which leads to the exodus and displacement of farmers and ultimately creates the situation of suicides. Farmers are in deep debt in the food bowl of the country and correspondingly, the number of farmers’ suicides has gone up to 13,000.

Dr Kalkat now says he has “asked the Punjab Agriculture University Vice-Chancellor to depute competent scientists to collect all agro techniques recommended by organic farmers and test the same scientifically at university farms. The university may associate organic growers also during this process.” He and his Commission should have done e before jumping to conclusion and sowing seeds of confusion. Kheti Virasat Mission director Umendra Dutt adds with anger, “ when he says that the Commission is asking the farmers to reduce the use of pesticides, does he not know that once farmers take a pattern; using chemicals at such a large scale, they can be weaned by alternative farm practices ,like organic farming and not half measures. He should read the reports of the PGI Chandigarh and other experts to reassess his reports if he does not want it to be thrown into dustbin.”

BACK

 
PSFC: Farmers’ Commission or ‘Food Security Mission’?

Sukhpal Singh

THE recent report of the Punjab State Farmers’ Commission (PSFC) on the relevance and feasibility of organic farming in Punjab has created a fresh and heated debate on the subject. The report lacks research rigour and logic on many fronts.

One, the report defines food security, which is used to assess role of organic farming, as just enough food production. It does not realize that food security is not just about production and availability of food but also about access to relevant food in hygienic food preparation and consumption environment for a healthy life.

Two, the report also seems confused in its objective of locating the relevance of organic farming in the state. It keeps referring to both food security and farmers’ income. It is difficult to understand how food security, which is a national concern, becomes the mandate of a state level farmers’ commission which was set up to deal with the agrarian crisis in the state and not resolve the food insecurity problem. The food security argument for conventional chemical farming is no different from Monsanto’s argument that GM crops were necessary to feed the hungry millions in the world!

Three, it does not even seem familiar with many global trade and quality standards like Eurepgap and recommends Indiagap certification without realizing that Eurepgap (now Globalgap) is a private collective standard set up by the retailers in Europe. How can this be replicated at the India level?
Four, the report includes Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a component of the organic farming definition which is factually incorrect because IPM does not exclude use of chemical inputs.

Five, from a market point of view, organic farming is well defined and cannot be confused with other terms like biological farming, ecological farming or natural farming which the report does not differentiate. Six, the report is also not well informed about many facts about organic production and trade e.g. it states that for a farm to the certified organic, it should be managed organically for a minimum of three years. The fact is that if a farm has not used chemical inputs in the past, as shown by farm history, then it could be converted into fully organic after two years or even earlier. Otherwise, even if a farm is not certified fully organic, its produce can be sold as in-conversion produce of year one or year two. The transition period depends on the local soil and agricultural context.

The report recommends organic farming in vegetables and milk due to the problem of chemical residues in these products. If that is the logic, then why not fruits, cereals, pulses and oilseeds also be produced organically? Surprisingly, the report seems to justify adulteration of milk by producers and vendors in the name of lack of chilling facilities which lead to curdling of milk. So far as milk curdling is concerned, it is important to ask how other milk producing states in India are dealing with the issue where milk production and distances involved are much larger and infrastructure poorer.

Though the report recognizes sustainability of soil health and eco system as a crucial concern, it does not recognize the role of organic production processes in that. The report asks questions like: Does organic food taste better or is it more nutritious and safer? It does not realize that, for a product to be sold, what matters is market preference and perception which can be created and leveraged especially in food

Centre for Management in Agriculture (CMA), IIM, Ahmedabad about which buyers/consumers are so careful and sensitive. It is not the scientific finding on taste or nutritional aspects of food which matters in the market but the preferences of the buyers and the consumers. Surprisingly, the report does not show any awareness of the fair and the ethical trade aspects of food and fiber markets and more so in organic food, which are so important in global markets today and these dimensions are about health – both human and animal- and environmental aspects of food production. If there is no edge in organic production, why do people pay premiums for organic food? Can one afford to say that simply because organic does not taste better than conventional, as claimed by scientific research, the farmers should be deprived of an opportunity to harness such market potential?

The report argues that it will not be possible to match the input requirements for organic farming due to inadequate number of animals in the state. The important question is: why can’t the number of animals be increased especially when the report recommends large scale organic milk production? Also, if chemical inputs could be produced by setting up high cost plants in the past and even imported, to raise agricultural productivity, why not increase the number of animals to support organic production?

The report asks: Is organic farming more profitable? This question is biased as why should one expect organic farming to be more profitable then conventional farming especially when it has many non-business benefits like improved soil health, safer food, and better environment? Could conventional farming in the state be viable without MSP? The report makes sweeping statement that there is no organized market for organic produce and underplays the individual and corporate efforts at marketing of organic products. Is individual and more business like coordinated marketing in agriculture, especially in a state like Punjab which has been so much dependent on state sponsored purchase by the institutions, not the very future of agricultural marketing? The report does not recognize the lower cost benefit of organic production and just focuses on price premiums. Were not price premiums in domestic market and export prices in the case of conventional paddy, wheat, and basmati rice a major factor in their viability so far? If the commission is so worried about profitability alone, then why recommend controlling of burning of crop residues? The important question is ask is: is the conventional farming as practiced today viable only because of subsidies on chemical inputs and MSP or on its own? On the other hand, there are no subsidies for organic production. To that extent, profitability comparison is unfair. It is also difficult to understand that if mainstream field crops are not viable organically, how milk, meat or eggs can be so, when all of them require organic inputs like fodder or poultry/cattle feed. Given the high conversion inefficiencies in milk products, diverting large areas for this kind of production may, in fact, go against the very purpose of ensuring food security which the report is so concerned about unnecessarily. If organic farming is so unviable and not suitable for Punjab, why was it being promoted during the Congress regime as part of its crop diversification programme and why was it not questioned?

So far as its obsession with food security is concerned, the report has not bothered to ask the question: If food production or availability was the only way to ensure food security, why has not India achieved it even today i.e. after four decades of chemical based farming? It is saddening to note that the report is obsessed with food security and higher income for the farmers as if agriculture is only about these two, and not social and ecological sustainability. It uses the arguments of labour shortage to justify use of chemical inputs ignoring many other ill effects of indiscriminate use of such modern inputs e.g. in wheat, due to mechanical harvesting, wheat straw was sold at Rs. 5-6 per kg. last year which was not good for the animal husbandry industry. It shows no awareness of the alternative and indigenous methods of weed and pest control like Non Pesticidal Management (NPM) of crops. In fact, the report does not question the given cropping pattern in the state which is at the root of the present crisis. Is it not fair enough to leave it to the farmer to decide whether s/he wants to be organic, instead of a state level body giving a mandate on this?

BACK

 
Israel unlikely to achieve its objectives

Dr. Sawraj Singh writes from Washington

ISRAEL launched the attack on Gaza with several objectives. However, it is unlikely to achieve its objectives and the war may further radicalize the region with Israel and the moderate Arabs becoming the biggest losers in the long run.

Israel’s major objective was to avenge the defeat of 2006 against the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Many people in the world, including many in Israel itself, felt that Israel lost to the Hezbollah. This time, Israel wants to secure a clear victory against the Hamas. Israel wants to regain the status of the leading power in the Middle East. The victory in the war can also be used by the Israeli leaders to boost their chances in the upcoming elections.

Another reason to start the war could be to sharpen the divisions between the radical and moderate Arabs, and eventually to isolate the radicals, such as Hamas, Iran, and Syria, and to strengthen the moderates such as pro-Western Egypt. This will be similar to supporting the Fatah against the Hamas.

Still another reason can be to stop President-elect Obama from starting a dialogue with Iran. Obama had indicated during his election campaign that he would like to open a dialogue with Iran. Israel is very concerned about Iran becoming stronger and eventually acquiring nuclear weapons. The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has given strong statements against Israel. Iran is getting sophisticated weaponry from Russia. Israel wanted to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear capabilities as it did in Iraq. However, attacking Iran can be very dangerous for Israel because Iran now has missiles which can reach any part of Israel. Iran is bound to launch a counter attack.
Hamas, Iran, and Syria, and to strengthen the moderates such as pro-Western Egypt. This will be similar to supporting the Fatah against the Hamas.

Some people feel that because Israel is unable to attack Iran at this time, it is using Hamas to vent its anger and frustration. However, attacking Hamas will only increase the influence of Iran in the region. Iran has emerged as a major supporter of Hamas as it became the biggest supporter of the Hezbollah. The alliance of Syria and Iran is becoming stronger with every Israeli attack on the Arabs. Iran, a non-Arab country, is being accepted more and more by the Arabs in the region as the leading regional power. Iran is appealing to them as Islamic countries rather than Arab countries. Iran is making the Palestinian cause as an Islamic cause rather than an Arab cause. This helps to broaden support for Palestinians.

The moderate Arabs are going to be the biggest losers. Ironically, Israel is strengthening its enemies and weakening its friends. Egypt, the traditional leading Arab country, is losing prestige in the Arab world in a big way. Many Arabs are very angry with Egypt and are calling it an American puppet and a supporter of Israel. Even Egyptian flags have been burned by some Arab demonstrators. Egypt continues to lose prestige in the Arab world. Gamal Abdel Nasser was the most influential leader the Arabs ever had. After Nasser, Anwar al-Sadat continued to be an important leader even though many Arabs hated him for being an American lackey. For his pro-American policies, he was assassinated. Hosni Mubarak has become very insignificant. He has neither regional influence nor any global importance. This attack is going to further reduce his standing.

Israel has vowed that it will finish Hamas as an effective fighting force. This is unlikely to happen. Actually, Hamas is going to gain in the long run because it will gain more sympathy and acceptance from the Arabs. Hamas is going to move closer to the Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis. In the long run, Israel’s attack on Gaza will change this trilateral alliance into a quadrilateral alliance.

BACK