GM forests or fuel mines?

By Pandurang Hegde
20 Mar 2010

Enough harm has already been done to the environment under the garb of development. Now, novel ideas like GM forests are being proposed as a new alternative fuel for the automobile industry. It's time for the world to learn from its cyclical mistakes, and fast!

Man's attempts to play with nature have now gone too far
(pic courtesy: The Ecologist)
As if the nationwide debate on Genetically Modified brinjal was not enough, we now have international agencies like the FAO rooting for GM trees. Surprisingly, while they suggest this, they presume that a forest full of GM trees will not lead to any more angst among the people.

According to the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) State of the World's Forests report (2009), a global pattern is emerging that reflects a correlation between economic development and the state of the forests. Forests around the world are under severe stress due to numerous demands caused by rapid economic development.

Those countries that have achieved high growth of economic development are able to stabilize or increase their forest area, while countries like India, that are undergoing rapid economic development, tend to struggle with immense pressure on their forests.

It would be too naïve to conclude that rich countries have stabilized the forest cover on their own. With their economic and financial muscle power, they have conserved their forests to provide ecosystem services while meeting their timber demand from the forest-rich regions of Asia or Latin America. Thus they have successfully and conveniently transferred the pressure to poorer countries, causing more harm to the indigenous population.

The demand for tropical hardwood from Europe and USA is the main cause of destruction of natural forests in tropical countries. It is this voracious appetite for tropical hardwood that is playing havoc in the agrarian economies of countries like Burma and Cambodia.

India, while following the same model of development, also has a large middle-class population that has put tremendous pressure on the existing forests. The expansion of mining in forest areas has threatened the existence of forest-dwelling tribal populations. Conflict over natural resources in forest-rich belts of states like Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh has resulted in a long-drawn battle between locals and industries, creating fertile hotbed for Naxalite insurgency. Ironically, the very forests that served as their lifeline have become a curse for these locals.

At this juncture, international forestry experts at FAO are looking at forests as an alternative source of fuel for the automobile sector after having burnt fingers with the agro and bio-fuels as a panacea to replace fossil fuels.

Jan Heino of FAO Forestry Department predicts, "Developments in science and technology will have an enormous impact on the future of forests and forestry. Trees may become the major source of fuel for cars, replacing oil." In many developed countries the research is geared towards developing genetically modified super trees that can overcome the slow gestation period with high capacity to produce cellulose fuels. This strategy has the added benefit of producing wood fuel on forest land without any negative impact on agricultural crops as with agro fuel, and unlike GM food crops, GM trees will face little opposition.

Nevertheless, there are apprehensions about these giant GM trees. The monoculture plantations might have a negative impact on forest biodiversity and on those indigenous communities that have forever lived in the forests. Sunderlal Bahuguna, pioneer of the Chipko Movement, says: "Commercialization of forests led to the destruction of biodiversity and introduction of exotic monoculture plantations. These are not forests but timber mines, as they cannot perform the multiple functions of a natural forest. Similarly, GM trees would accelerate the process of conversion of existing diverse forests into fuel-generating plantations. These should be called 'fuel mines'."

Clearly, the FAO approach is based on the narrow, parochial understanding with commercial benefits as the main objective. In contrast, the Chipko approach is based on the holistic understanding of forests as a source of soil, water and air.

It would be appropriate to look at the future of forests in terms of safe deposits for humanity that provide ecosystem services. The crisis of global warming has heightened the need to conserve and raise bio-diverse natural forests.

The ecosystem services of forests are no more evident than in case of the national capital Delhi, which depends on the Yamuna to meet its water requirement. The water flow in Yamuna is dependent on the forest catchments in Himalayas. Similarly, in the south the Cauvery meets the water requirement of cities like Bangalore, pumping it from a distance of 250 kilometres. The forest catchments for Cauvery lie in the Western Ghats. But in both cases neither Delhi nor Bangalore is interested in paying for the ecosystem services provided by the forests.

It is unfortunate that both the state governments and the people have ignored this basic principle of payment. Ignoring this factor may have long-term consequences for water security in the coming decade.

GM push will crush traditional farming

By Claude Alvares
09 Feb 2010


Indian farmers taking out death procession of Bt Brinjal

Facing tremendous pressure from the very influential agri-business lobby, the Government of India was keen to introduce GM food crops but nationwide protests and strong opposition from various quarters might force it to take a decision in the interest of the people.

The green revolution which was set in motion in 1966 was engineered outside the country. It was implemented within by the then agricultural establishment without a thought to its environmental consequences. With genetically modified crops we have a repeat, with one crucial difference. This time the technology comes with private ownership as part of its baggage and naturally, a demand for royalty and fees.

The question on everyone's lips is why is the Government of India so keen to allow powerful and ruthless US corporations like Monsanto (represented in India by companies like Mahyco) to privatise the basis of our food production system - the seed?

Monsanto has gone on record saying that it is working towards creating a world in which all farmers everywhere will only use Monsanto seed (and naturally pay it fees for doing so). Since when did Monsanto's aims become those of the Government of India as well?

Take the priorities facing us (and the govt including Jairam Ramesh) in the environmental arena today. Measures to deal with climate change - which is endangering the planet - deferred. Actions to tackle issues like sewage, garbage, polluted rivers, critically polluted areas, tiger loss - all deferred. But the introduction of GM brinjal has convulsed the Government into action. But is brinjal production one of the Government's priorities? Since when? There is hardly any one connected with agriculture in the country today who would venture to plead that there is any crisis in brinjal production. In fact, we have more than enough of brinjal that we make it into pickles. So why the hyperdrive? Who decided the brinjal agenda? The answer is Monsanto and USAID.

Speed has always been a key element of Monsanto strategy. Before Americans could even know it (and protest), GM foods were upon them. Today, 85-91% of corn, cotton and soybean are planted with Monsanto engineered seed. Now the company is gunning for America's wheat as well. With less than 1% of the US population left as farmers, it's easy to get them all to purchase seeds dutifully every year from corporations. They have no alternative.

Could that happen in India? Well, it appears that the Government of India is trying very hard.

Already in some cotton growing areas in the country today, only GM seed is available for farmers - spurious or authentic nobody seems to care. Once every other variety of cotton seed is out of the market, we are at Mahyco's mercy. For good reason the Andhra Government acted sternly against Mahyco for extortionate cotton seed prices and the Monopolies Commission had to move against the same company to prevent monopoly price fixing.

At a time when rising costs of inputs are making agriculture unviable and are one of the reasons for farmer suicides, it is absurd to promote a seed replacement system in which seeds can only be frightfully expensive. GM seeds are many times more expensive than normal certified seed due to extortionate royalty charges. This is because they carry proprietary patented genes. The sale and profiting out of life commenced when the Supreme Court of the United States decided that corporations could patent genetically altered organisms which none of them created in the first place.


All GMOs come in with stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws. The US Supreme Court has in a recent case held that a farmer whose crop had been contaminated by pollen from an adjacent crop which used patented genes would not be able to use the resulting seed to plant a new crop even though he was the owner of the seed and it had grown on his land. If he did this nonetheless, he would be violating the provisions of the US Patent Act which does not permit illegal, unauthorised use of patented goods without payment of charges.

How would that scenario emerge in India?

Begin with brinjal since it is eaten by almost everyone. Introduce it through popular varieties like the Udipi Gulla or the Agassaim variety from Goa. The Bt versions cannot be distinguished from the farmers' non-Bt varieties. However, the Bt gene is bound to cross over into the non-Bt varieties where it can be easily identified by looking for its markers. After a period of 3-5 years, all brinjal growing in an area will be contaminated and will carry the proprietary gene (belonging to the corporate concerned). Besides contaminating common brinjal varieties, the gene will have also crossed over into tomato, potato and other solanaceous crops. Wherever it goes, the IPR would apply.

After Bt brinjal, they are planning to tamper with bhendi, rice and 52 other crops with the same methods. These varieties will carry either proprietary genes that kill insects or proprietary genes that will make crops safe from Monsanto's proprietary chemicals (like weedicides).

Imagine a situation in which more than 50 of India's major food and commercial crops come under the ownership of one or two or three companies because they carry willy-nilly proprietary genetic material and every seed for these crops will carry a tax to be paid to Monsanto, Cargill or their agents.

Can someone tell me how this predictable scenario is incorrect, false, distant, unrealistic?

So what's the immediate plan to get this scenario in motion?

Introduce genetically modified brinjal before people have time to think. Take them by surprise. Disarm them with sponsored scientists claiming that GM food is needed for increased production (false) and that it is safe (false). Once its cultivation becomes widespread, there is no looking back because genes released into the environment cannot be recalled even by God. What is more important, they will cause so much of contamination of other crops that India's agriculture and food will never be the same again.


For organic farmers as a class, GM crops spell a bleak and grim future. Organic farming certification standards do not permit the use of GMOs. Already certifying agencies are refusing to certify organic farms that are adjacent to farms using Bt cotton. States like Gujarat, where most of cotton grown is of the Bt variety, will soon lose organic status completely. In April 2009, European markets found to their horror that 30% of Indian certified organic cotton exports were contaminated with Bt genes. (India produces more than half the world's organic cotton.) We have carefully built up an export market of over Rs.500 crore for organic cotton (growing leaps and bounds every year) which we now see collapsing before our eyes. I am not referring to the crores being spent by both Central and State governments to promote organic farming within the country which is additional.

The tragedy is that by killing organic farming in this manner we are killing ecological agriculture and turning our backs on ecology. Ecological agriculture has always been a win-win proposal. It builds the soil instead of depleting it; it takes the assistance of soil fauna including earthworms and beneficial microbes. It rejects synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and thereby grows safe and nutritious food. It preserves biodiversity and insect balance. It encourages best use of resources as it encourages farmers to generate all their inputs on the farm.

Genetically modified agriculture turns its back on all this. It replaces farmer-generated seeds with corporate owned seed. It promotes more intensive use of chemical fertilizers. It claims to reduce the use of pesticides. In fact the entire genetically modified plant (in this case, Bt Brinjal) has been made into a toxic: every cell reproduces the Bt toxin. As organic farmers we use naturally occurring Bt sometimes to get rid of unwelcome pests, but then this is not to be consumed and we wash it off the plant when its use is done. No one in his right mind would want to use a brinjal whose every cell reproduces the Bt toxin.

The most careful assessment of sustainable use technology for agriculture was carried out by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a UN group which studied all options including GMOs. India is a participant and therefore signed the final report (2008). The report in fact recommends more reliance on non-GM technologies, especially ecological agriculture. If the government of India promotes GM based agriculture, it will be turning its back on the most up to date assessment of agricultural technologies done under the UN system.