Spurious seeds flood the Indian market

By Devinder Sharma
18 Jun 2010


The poor regulation and absence of strict punitive measures in the present seed law encourage spurious seed manufacturers and sellers to exploit farmers.

A few weeks back I was travelling in the Nimad region of Madhya Pradesh in central India. Nimad derives its name from the neem tree. As the region's name suggests, neem is the dominant tree in this area. What however strikes you is multiplicity of Bt cotton posters that adorn walls, trees, buses etc. You see them everywhere.
I saw posters and banners of some 20 different brands of Bt cotton seed. To name a few: Super Mallika, Atal, Jai Bt, Ankur 3028, Ganesh, Gabbar, Mallika Gold, Superman, Jaadu Bt cotton, and Obama. I wonder how the farmer makes the right kind of choice, of which seed brand to pick up. How many of them end up being duped, your guess is as good as mine.

Hybrid seed is a lucrative market. There was a time when close to 2,000 brands of hybrid seeds of cotton were being sold in Andhra Pradesh. Interestingly, at least one of the parents in most of these hybrids was common. I wonder how could so many different kinds of hybrids (and all with higher productivity) be developed with one parent being common. In other words, most of these popular brands were nothing but duplicates being sold under different names.

So if there was a brand of hybrid cotton seed named Laxmi someone brought another brand called Super Laxmi. Farmers have to use their sixth sense (if any) in selecting the more genuine ones from hundred of brands flooding the market.

The menace of multiple brands of hybrid seeds has now spread to the northern parts of the country. Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab are now faced with this problem. In all these States, hybrid seeds have flooded the market, mostly from Andhra Pradesh. Whether it is vegetable (which in any case is dominated by hybrids, with the UP, Haryana and Punjab governments providing subsidy on its cultivation), cotton or rice, what is being increasingly available in the market are only hybrid seeds.

In UP, a report in Dainik Jagran says the four main agricultural universities were provided with Rs 53 crore from the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna to develop locally adaptable hybrid seeds. But none of these universities have undertaken any such research project. Now don't ask, what happened to the Rs 53-crore (or Rs 530 million) allocated for the purpose. The average market price for hybrid seed that is available is Rs 200 per kg. Farmers have little choice but to go by the recommendation of the retailers selling the seed.

Quoting a State government report, the newspaper says that between 2006 and 2009, 40 private seed companies had made available 102 different kinds/brands of hybrid seeds to the agricultural universities for evaluation. Only 14 of these were made available for research in the second year of cultivation (since hybrids lose their hybrid vigour in the 2nd generation). It means that the hybrid seed sector is dominated by fly-by-night operators who make money from one year's sale, and than disappear probably to appear again with a new brand.
Not even one seed sample was drawn and sent for testing in any of the laboratories in UP.
That makes me wonder whether the kind of intense deliberations and engagement that a few of us (and that includes farmer organisations and NGOs) are involved in over the proposed Seed Bill will make any practical difference to the existing market realities? Is the Ministry of Agriculture even aware of the hanky-panky that goes unchecked in the name of improved seeds? And even if they are aware, do they care?
What is therefore urgently needed is a strict penalty clause with heavy penalties (and prison terms) in the proposed Seed Bill. Unless some of the guilty seed manufacturers and dealers are hauled up and given exemplary punishment, selling spurious seed will remain a flourishing business for all kinds of operators.
Well, knowing what the Prime Minister said: "Bhopals will happen, but the country has to progress," and that sends a message down the line, you should be prepared not to expect any meaningful change. After all, the more the seed samples are sold, the more it adds to the GDP calculations. Who cares for the aam kisan?

more interesting reads @www.d-sector.org

Nuclear bill unclear on criminal liability

By Gopal Krishna
14 Jan 2010

The proposed legislation to fix liability for nuclear damages intends to provide a legal protection to multinational nuclear suppliers and to shift the burden on the public sector operators of reactors in the event of a disaster.

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2009, (CLND Bill) proposed by the UPA government is ridden with glaring loopholes and booby traps because it insulates nuclear energy companies from punitive legal consequences. It seems the people who drafted this Bill were not aware of the Report of the US President's Commission on The Accident at Three Mile Island that happened in 1979.

The Union Cabinet, in a hastily convened meeting, cleared the text of the CLND Bill on November 19, 2009, just before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's US visit, for introduction in the Parliament. Such haste clearly exposes the pressure nuclear power companies have been putting on India through US government. The govt hopes passage of the CLND Bill will allow India to join the international convention on civil liability for nuclear damage. So far this Nuclear Bill is not in public domain.

To begin with, the bill should be renamed as Liability from Nuclear Damage Bill and the government must explicitly inform the parliament and the citizens what lessons from the Three Mile Island Accident Report have been incorporated in the Bill. Mere civil liability is totally unacceptable because it has not factored in all the nuclear accidents which have happened in India and the world. Most importantly, before a Bill of this nature is brought in, central government must come out with a white paper on the status of relief to radioactive radiation victims and the liability therein with regard to existing facilities. The Bill must also include mining sites of radioactive minerals like uranium in its definition of nuclear facility.

While placing a cap on the compensation to be paid in the case of an accident at a nuclear site, the proposed legislation puts the responsibility for paying this compensation on the reactor operator (read Public sector companies) and not on the foreign suppliers installing the reactors in India. This has been an old demand of the Multinational Corporations like Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals. Certainly, this provision is not in public interest. Nuclear power companies in general and US nuclear companies like GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Westinghouse and Babcock & Wilcox intend to invest in India only if they are provided anticipatory bail for their legal liability for nuclear accidents in future. US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake informed a US House committee: "… we are hoping to see action on nuclear liability legislation that would reduce liability for American companies and allow them to invest in India…"

US nuclear industry has been pampered by special laws made by the US government that limit their liability from nuclear radiation accidents. It wishes to be operated under the laws proposed and shaped by the industry itself. It is important to note that US companies which are part of US commercial nuclear mission to India organised jointly by the Nuclear Energy Institute and the US India Business Council (USIBC) recently informed media that they were satisfied with the contents of the Bill and were in active discussion with Nuclear Power Corporation, Tata Power, GMR, Jindal, NTPC, L&T to explore business potential. Clearly, the US nuclear companies have seen the Bill (might have drafted it as well) much before it is to be tabled in the Indian Parliament.

Notably, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry's (FICCI) 25 member Working Group on Civil Nuclear Energy-2009 came out with a 57 page report wherein lies the basis of the proposed 'The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2009'. The FICCI report has an annexure "Domestic Legislation Dealing with CNL" (Civil Nuclear Liability) wherein it states, "As a natural corollary to the liberalization of the nuclear sector in India, the government of India is mooting the idea of a CNL Bill. Aligning to any international CNL treaty would involve the enactment of a domestic CNL legislation with appropriate provisions. There being no explicit statute or legislation in India, either creating or limiting liability of persons engaged in nuclear installations till now, liability would stand determined by courts, pursuant to actions in tort."

FICCI suggests 'domestic legislation dealing with CNL' may incorporate the following: Single point liability for the operator of the nuclear installation ("Operator"); Liability of non-operators transferred to the Operator; Exceptions to liability to include standard force-majeure provisions with specific emphasis on terrorist and anti-social activities; Capping of liabilities according to internationally adhered benchmarks may be adopted with the government prescribing the threshold limit; State liability to provide for claim amounts awarded by a competent court over and above the liability of the operator; Clear and precise definition of 'nuclear incident' and 'nuclear installation'.

It's absolutely essential, "If there was not a cap and if there was not suitable legislation insurance in place, then we wouldn't be in the nuclear industry." Peter Mason, president and chief executive of nuclear supplier GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada explained to the Parliamentary Standing Committee of the Canadian House of Commons on Natural Resources that is dealing with Bill C-20, their Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, November 2009.
In the United States, liability for nuclear accidents is set at $10 billion (US), while in Japan the cap will be doubled next year to roughly $1.47 billion (Canadian). Whether a nuclear accident is a $650 million disaster or a multi-billion dollar catastrophe is determined by the direction and speed of the wind that carries the radioactive radiation. Currently, Canada is seized with a Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act wherein the bill raises the cap on liability to $650 million from the $75 million limit established in 1976. The damage from Chernobyl is estimated at some $250 billion. In Germany, there is no cap on nuclear liability but an operator must be able to cover at least $4 billion and the civil liability is estimated at Euro 2000-5000 billion.

The international conventions which provide for liability regime also favour the industry and not the possible victims and provides for indemnity to the global nuclear industry: the Paris Convention (1960), the Vienna Convention (VC) revised in 1997 and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC).

The CSC limits the compensation payable by the operators of nuclear plants for any accidents or damage to $450 million, leaving the responsibility for the rest to national governments almost in the range of compensation paid to the victims of the Bhopal's industrial disaster ($470 million) wherein victims were turned from citizens into subjects of the ruling regime.

Not surprisingly, in its report FICCI feigns ignorance about all the nuclear accidents in the world and has repeatedly cited the Supreme Court order in the Charan Lal Sahu, Petitioner vs. Union of India, Respondent case in which the validity of the doctrine of parens patriae was upheld but this remains a matter of judicial scrutiny by jurists all over the world. The Petitioner in this case had challenged the validity of the doctrine invoked through Bhopal Gas Disaster (Proceedings of Claims) Act, 1985 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Act was valid and that the State had rightly taken over the exclusive right to represent and act on behalf of every person entitled to make a claim, as a majority of the victims were poor and illiterate. Consequently, the exclusion of the victims from filing their own cases was held to be proper.

It is now well known that 'hazardous corporations' are a fit case for the application of the principle of Absolute Liability and Multinational Enterprise Liability because they are neither 'restricted by national boundaries' nor effectively controlled by international law because of their complex corporate structure with networks of subsidiaries and decisions which make it exceedingly difficult or even impossible to pinpoint responsibility for the damage caused by the enterprise. They operate through a neatly designed network of interlocking directors, a common operating, distribution & marketing systems, design & technology, financial & other controls and highly sophisticated machines & working staff. Consequently, victims of such enterprises are unable to identify which unit of the enterprise caused the harm. Therefore, faults by even a local subsidiary must be attributed to the parent company because their duty too is non-delegable.

Notably, the Supreme Court also held that the Act only deals with civil liability and as such does not curtail or affect rights in respect of criminal liability. So, the CLND Bill must be redrafted to include both criminal liabilities and deterrent civil liabilities.

Defence Research and Development Canada, the Canadian Department of Defence, has suggested that a severe nuclear accident results in wide contamination. The research conducted by it looked at the impact of a relatively small dirty bomb going off in downtown Toronto. It estimated that cleaning up the contamination using the most stringent standards could cost up to $250 billion, and that the economic toll could reach $23.5 billion. This research was commissioned in 2007. However, no such research has ever been commissioned in India.

The institutional accountability for Bhopal and Kaiga like disasters rests with Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs and the proposed 'CLND Bill' shows that it has not learnt any lessons because it has not been made accountable for its past lapses.

The Nuclear Liability Bill must take note of the environmental hazards from the nuclear facilities and potential nuclear accidents and incorporate stringent criminal and civil liability provisions taking lessons from worst accident at a civilian nuclear power plant in Three Mile Island (TMI) occurred on March 28, 1979 in US and the Chernobyl disaster, a nuclear reactor accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

This nuclear accident led to a cessation of new nuclear plant construction in the US. Indian government and the parliament must take lessons from these accidents to avoid legislative and judicial disasters through these Bills which do not have the power to prevent Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl & Kaiga like accidents. Parliamentary deliberations in countries like Canada and Germany on liability and nuclear energy issues must be factored in before admitting any Bill under the influence from vested interests in supreme public interest.

An independent and credible multi-disciplinary commission should also be constituted with immediate effect to ascertain the potential consequences of nuclear accidents or 'incidents' and liability arising out of it, before putting the CLND Bill before parliament.

COP15 turns into a climate con

By Bhaskar Goswami
Copenhagen, 17 Dec 2009

With rich countries refusing to accept emission reduction targets, the chances of a meaningful climate deal at Copenhagen are now almost over.

Hillary Clinton offered too little, too late and with too many conditions (photo: AP)
Climate negotiators tried reaching consensus on key issues by burning midnight oil at cold Copenhagen but the draft texts with unresolved issues in 102 square brackets refuse to melt away. As was predicted right from the beginning, the chances of a climate deal at COP 15 are now more or less dead.

However, two notable developments took place before Heads of States assemble at Copenhagen:

1. The US finally came out of self-induced coma (till now it was banking upon Australia, Japan and India to defend its interests) and announced that developed countries will not agree to emission cuts and instead, emerging economies like India and China must undertake binding cuts.

2. Before stepping down, the controversial Danish Chair at the talks, Connie Hedegaard, dropped a bombshell: emission reduction targets for rich countries will not be decided at COP 15!

In that case, what exactly are we negotiating at COP 15?

There is more. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly putting his head together with Mexico and Australia to come up with a fresh draft that would be "agreeable" to all parties. This is despite the fact that Australia is overtly batting for protecting the interests of developed countries and has been demanding undue concessions from developing countries.

Possibly unnerved by allegations of promoting the interest of rich countries, Denmark today refrained from tabling the much talked about "Danish Draft II".

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is on his way to Copenhagen and his pre-flight announcement offers some indicators of what lies in store: India will be willing to do more than cut emission intensity provided developed countries are willing to provide financial and technological support to their developing counterparts! Must sound like music to the ears of developed countries.


Finally, the writing on the wall is clear: negotiators have failed to deliver and therefore COP 15 moves into the political arena. Now begins the give-and-take business of diplomacy wherein climate change takes the backseat while a handful of silver here or a trade-incentive there will determine the future of our planet.

The first country off the block on this "for-a-few-pieces-of-silver" campaign is UK and Prime Minister Gordon Brown is actively interacting with developing countries on working out a financial deal to help them reduce emissions. It's a different matter that the amount being offered through his initiative by the rich countries ($10 billion a year) is less than what some of them alone spend on energy efficiency.

The US does not wish to be left out from the party and Hillary Clinton announced this morning a $100 billion grant by 2020 to help poor countries combat climate change. Not only is this way short of UN's estimates of what is required, the fine print reveals that bulk of it comes from already committed grants. That the package is aimed at promoting business opportunities for US corporations becomes clear from the proposal emphasising on expanding carbon markets. Also, there is not a word on cutting emissions or opening new windows for aid. Surely, developing nations want Clinton to do and deliver more than merely smile patronisingly during her presentations.

That the package is aimed at promoting business opportunities for US corporations becomes clear from the proposal emphasising on expanding carbon markets.
Instead of the sham being played out at Bella Centre for the last ten days, it perhaps would have been a better bet to put Barack Obama, Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao in a room to thrash out a deal. Given Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's past record of egging his delegates to toe the US' line at WTO and other multilateral negotiations, the two-to-one majority (with Australia or the UN standing in as a referee) would have yielded a deal and every delegate could go home swearing that it was their effort that made the rest of the world agree to a "just" deal.

That has not happened and by tomorrow - the last day of COP15 - what is most likely is that the rich nations will be allowed to offset their emissions instead of reducing them, which is ridiculous. Even if an outright deal on this line is not achieved in the next 24 hours, the 6-month roadmap kept under wraps by the EU will ensure that this is quietly put it in place. While the venue will shift from freezing Copenhagen to a warm Mexican city in 2010 for ratification, a deal to ensure that rich countries continue to pollute the earth will in any case be legalised.

As it is, the most ambitious targets offered at the conference are barely sufficient to combat climate change. Copenhagen would be known for a farce where leaders talked about talking and yet did not talk anything meaningful. The level of mistrust that prevails will never be overcome easily.

US delegates who were earlier arrogantly talking about how Obama will step in and change the outlook of the talks are playing it down now. And if tomorrow Obama shakes his head and expresses sadness because a deal failed to materialise, there are no prizes for guessing the eventual loser in the blame game - India. This is despite the Indian leadership bending backwards to accommodate US' unwarranted position. At Copenhagen, India is looked down as a lapdog of the US and it sure is embarrassing.

The negotiators might have failed, but that does not prevent them from making a final effort at conveying that they tried hard before their political masters take over tonight.

The UK has unilaterally proposed to halve its emissions by 2020 by increasing cost of energy and levying "green" taxes. This sounds good but in order to make these cuts meaningful, they must be to the tune of at least 42 percent with zero offsets, which is unlikely to happen. The EU has expressed its willingness to enhance emission cuts from 20 to 30 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

Japan has proposed a 25 per cent cut while Australia has offered cuts between 11 and 33 per cent. The only spoiler is the US with its offer of a 4 percent cut from 1990 level. No wonder developing countries are crying foul. From Copenhagen it is apparent that our leaders don't lead. Instead, they follow greed.

Manmohan's policies behind tribal alienation

By Devinder Sharma
06 Nov 2009

It is high time the country gets over its mindless obsession with the economic growth built on criminal exploitation of the tribal resources

Occasionally Prime Minister Manmohan Singh speaks as if he has rediscovered his old socialist zeal with which he used to serve former Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. To add to the confusion, sometimes he openly expresses doubts over success of the liberal economic agenda introduced and propagated by him since 1991. Contrary to his policies, his words display empathy and concern for the poor and marginalised. Recently, amidst rising Maoist activity and security forces' mobilisation to curb their spread, Prime Minister acknowledged that there had been a 'systemic failure' in ensuring the progress of tribals. "We've failed tribals, want to rectify that", he said.

His address during a conference of chief ministers and tribal affairs ministers in New Delhi, on November 4 was not the first time the Prime Minister made such statements or come out in the open acknowledging the faults that prevails in the official system. Remember once he talked about crony capitalism, and then on one occasion he had expressed his disagreement with the massive pay packages of corporate and business heads at a time when the country was faced with hunger, poverty and growing unemployment.

"The alienation built over the decades is taking a dangerous turn," said Mr Singh. "There has been a systemic failure in giving tribals a stake in modern economic processes. The systematic exploitation of our tribal communities can no longer be tolerated."

Very powerful words indeed! Coming from the Prime Minister himself it gives the nation an impression that man at the top is after all humane, and is willing to set the house in order. It looks as if the apathy and crime that the civilised India, and that includes the Corporate India, or call it modern India, has been inflicting on the tribals will come to an end. But don't forget, it is often said that if dreams were horses, beggars would ride.

I remember soon after he had taken over as Prime Minister for the first time, Manmohan Singh had in one of his speeches said that there were 161 districts which were inflicted with Maoism. Today, nearly a third of India, close to 235 districts, is faced with Maoist violence. The people who support Maoists have picked up the gun, not because they are trigger-happy, but because of the decades of oppression and suppression that they have been subjected to. What do you expect when someone is driven to the wall, and that too for ages.

The ruthless exploitation of the simple folks in the tribal areas has gone on for generations. They can't go on chanting bhajans and hope that the Government would listen to them. Picking up the gun comes as a last resort, and we must accept that it is because of our failure as a society that the tribals are on a warpath. No amount of fire-fighting or sending the army to fight the tribals mobilised under the Maoists is going to be helpful, the Prime Minister must know this.

I agree that "no sustained activity is possible under the shadow of the gun," as the Prime Minister stated the other day. But no 'sustained activity" is possible when the government on the one hand is busy facilitating the process of continued exploitation of the tribal lands, and at the same time bringing in economic policies that displaces the tribals and forces them to sell their daughters and wives as a last resort to survive the State onslaught.

Mr Prime Minister, let us first acknowledge that it is your own economic policies that are alienating the tribals. The Special Economic Zones (SEZ) for instance that your government is aggressively pushing, the massive land acquisitions that your government is again thriving on, the usurping of the traditional rights of the tribal communities and above all the systematic destruction of sustainable agriculture all over the country, are primarily responsible for growing violence.

A Planning Commission report had very clearly brought out that roughly 360 districts in India (out of the 600-odd) are faced with one kind of strife or the other. If you leave aside communal violence, much of the fault rests with the Planning Commission itself for perpetuating policies that have acerbated the crisis, by alienating the people from their natural resources, by taking away their right of life.

We all know that the tribal lands are rich in natural resources, including forests, minerals and diamonds. We know that the economic growth the country talks about is actually built on criminal exploitation of these tribal resources. You call it growth economics, I call it violent economics. Violence not only in the form of the gun culture that prevails now, but includes the global economic crisis which also is the outcome of this violent economics. The climate change the world is faced with is also the result of the flawed economic thinking, another form of violence that has brought the world closer to a tripping point.

And then you say that "Nor have those who claim to speak for tribals offered an alternate economic or social path that is viable." This is not true, Mr Prime Minister. The fact is that you actually do not want to see any reasoning in what those who speak for tribals are trying to say. There are ample suggestions being put forward. If not, you can spend some time visiting the tribal leaders, setting an example by leading from the front.

The reality is that it is only you who is not keen to listen to these voices of reasoning.

Please tell the nation when was the last time you sat with them to find out the reasons behind the cult violence in the tribal lands. When was it that your government (or the State governments) have even thought of putting together a 'sustained activity' to restore the pride of the tribals. Your only interest is to see how the Corporates make more profits, because that is what will add to GDP, your sole rating criteria. You have your self said once that SEZ is an idea whose time has come. And how many of these SEZ are coming up in the tribal lands, will you please tell the nation.

There are enough reasons to get more worried. Privatisation of natural resources, including water, destruction of the sustainable farming practices, and the policies that are meant to push farmers out of agriculture, the population shift that your government is contemplating, will add on to the existing crisis. It will lead to a still more 'dangerous turn'.

You will therefore agree Mr Prime Minister, every great leader must find some time to introspect, to see where he/she is going wrong. It is high time you re-discover the human side of Manmohan Singh, and then initiate policies and actions that can make that historical correction that you often talk about but never meant it. I am sure you can do it. You have the ability, and the capability. Do it, Mr Prime Minister, and this nation will remain eternally grateful to you.