Activists protesting against BT Brinjal. Photo credit:S.Subramanium/The Hindu

As much as energy security is integral to Indian climate change policy, meeting basic development targets are important too. A few days ago, the UK gave £6m towards Indo-British research projects, out of which £1.5m has been earmarked ‘to exploit and develop advances in biotechnology applicable in an agricultural context.’ 

This, in the same week that the regulator on GM foods, the government’s GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) announced it will look into independent studies questioning the safety of genetically modified strains of brinjal (aubergine), currently undergoing trials. Protests marked the meeting of the GEAC.

The Indian context 

BT Cotton, perhaps the most well known GM crop in India, turned cotton into a cash crop and made India into a major exporter and the 2nd largest producer in the world. The GEAC has also given the go-ahead for trials into GM versions of brinjal (aubergine), transgenic cotton, tomato, rice and okra (lady’s finger). Proponents of GM foods argue that not only do they provide stronger better crops and reduce water use and emissions, they are also vital in the context of food security, as populations increase and climate change affects agriculture.

 But, as these independent studies argue, BT brinjal in this case, could pose a hazard to humans as well as biodiversity.  

Moreover, the emergence of new secondary pests, health problems and cattle deaths have been associated with farmers who switched to GM crops. Additionally, associated financial burden, debt traps and farmer suicides have been documented.  There has been widespread public outcry as well. So why is it that in spite of the questionable utility of genetically modified crops in India is the government still pursuing them?

Lack of information, weak regulation and public participation

A large part of GM debate in India is about bringing in new investment and technology, modernizing agriculture and integrating it into the market.  Much of the problem lies in the opaque manner in which these decisions are taken. As of now, the regulatory process is questionable: it is not transparent, there is little public participation, and the rampant spread of illegal GM crops is testimony to the regulator’s weak powers.

 Virtually nonexistent in this whole question has been the inclusion of public participation and debate, even though (or perhaps because) those directly affected by such commodities are millions of poor farmers. This has created a confrontational situation: with the powerful biotechnology MNCs with financial and political clout on one side lobbying the government and the public and the activists on the other side. The two don’t really meet (except perhaps in litigation). Debate on GM products does exist, but it is rarely integrated into the regulatory process itself. Information is not disseminated - Greenpeace, for example,  resorted to filing a Right to Information petition for access to the BT Brinjal bio safety reports, following which Mahyco, the company trialling the vegetable got a stay order before being directed by the courts to release the reports.

The way forward 

India urgently needs to incorporate debate into the political process in order to comprehensively assess if GM is the way forward. One has to look at the alternatives – organic farming, for example – as well. Vandana Shiva’s Navdanya is one of many groups arguing for a less external-input intensive approach to India’s problems: sustainable agriculture that relies on the farmer’s participation, encourages ‘seed sovereignty’ and local solutions that are environmentally friendly. IFAD’s study into organic agriculture and poverty reduction in China and India highlights the need for for better support systems for smaller farmers switching to organic farming that help in certification, marketing and capacity building. 

Very little importance is given to public consultation on a very public issue, and most people don’t entirely understand the arguments involved. To top it all, the government too is flip flopping on the issue: the Union Agriculture Minister and the Health Minister have both said that India should be GM free. Or is this just electioneering?

Parched earth in Ethiopia (credit: usaid.gov)

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) recently published some research which found that, in poor countries such as Ethiopia, poverty is a seriously barrier to adaptation.

Apparently, more than a third of rural Ethiopian households have not made any adjustments to their farming practices in the face of global warming. This is despite the fact that water is becoming ever more scarce, and enhanced irrigation systems are crucial if subsistence farmers are to survive. African farmers are overwhelmingly dependent on rain-fed agriculture, and in rural areas there is very poor infrastructure.

The Prime Minister of Ethiopia said at a climate change conference this week: “However unjust it might be we have to adapt or die. We can only succeed to adapt to climate change if we fight poverty effectively and generate the resources needed for the purpose.”

Clearly, adaptation and development must go hand in hand, as he recognises. Nevertheless, the governments of poor countries must be tactical, and give more emphasis to agriculture (and in particular, the sustainability of water supplies to feed their crops) if their populations are to adequately adapt to the forecast temperature increases.

In the study, Ethiopian farmers identified shortages of land as the single biggest constraint to adapting to climate change. This was followed by lack of information and credit as well as lack of labour, inputs, water and poor soils.

The government can help directly in many of these areas, and rich country donors need to do more to support this process, with both financing and know-how. Indeed, as the prime minister went on “The injustice of the whole issue of global warming and climate change lies in the fact that those who have contributed nothing to its genesis will suffer the most from its consequences because they have the least capacity to adapt to these changes.”

 

Irrigation in Africa (source: fao.org)

Last week, ministers from 53 African countries gathered at a FAO summit in Libya, entitled “Water for Energy and Agriculture in Africa: the Challenges of Climate Change”. It was timely. Irrigated land forms 38% of all land in Asia, but only 7% in Africa, and Africa’s food needs will triple by 2050 if population growth continues at current levels.

Many parts of Africa are already seeing diminishing water resources (as a result of both over-abstraction and climate change), and IPCC predictions suggest this will worsen in many areas, particularly the Sahel.

As is the case with many summits, a main outcome was the call for another summit, this time a bigger one, with all world heads of State and government. FAO suggested this could help find the $30 billion a year that is needed for investment in Africa’s water and rural infrastructure.

More investment is indeed urgent. Agriculture and water have fallen down the development agenda in recent years, as health and education have risen to the fore. This has been reflected in aid levels.

However, the issue of water, particularly as climate change starts to bite harder, must always be tackled holistically. There are numerous users competing for scarce resources: farmers, industry, and most importantly, people drinking the stuff. Only 58% of Sub-Saharan Africans have access to a safe drinking water supply.

Whilst it is crucial to increase water access for agricultural purposes, the poor must not be cut off for the benefit of agribusiness. Mechanisms must be developed for water resource management at a local level which take into account the voice of all users. Without this, the rich and powerful will prevail.

As Africa adapts to climate change, the mantra “some for all, not all for some” must be followed with regard to water, if resources are to be shared equitably and sustainably.

 

UK-China Side event, Poznan, 5th Dec 2008

Amongst talks of supporting developing countries through funding and technology transfer, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) held a side event here at Poznan yesterday, to promote their partnership with China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST).

A key example of a collaboration between an Annex 1 and a non-Annex 1 country, the project focused on climate change effects on Chinese agriculture – particularly the vulnerability of cereal crops (rice, maize and wheat) which represent a major sector in China.

The collaboration aimed to increase the understanding of impacts of climate change, and the interactions between water resources, food security, and social issues such as forced migration. The project was also designed to develop better strategies to adapt in agriculture, and applied the principles from the Bali roadmap, including:

1. Increasing and developing evidence
2. Capacity Building
3. Knowledge and Technology Transfer

UK government agencies such as the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) provided modelling and future climate scenarios which underpinned the project. They worked closely with government departments (DECC and DFID) and the University of East Anglia (UEA) to determine the climate change impacts in China.

The research focussed on the region on Ningxia and concluded that a 3-5 degrees temperature rise is expected by the 2080s, reducing crop yields by  up to 10-15% by 2020. Water scarcity is already an issue in China, and is expected to present further issues for agriculture in the next 80 years. Key recommendations included a cross departmental group for addressing adaptation in the region, awareness raising of climate change impacts – particularly among farmers, and the integration of climate concerns within ongoing national rural development programmes.

Whilst the panel and project members were more than happy to share information and data with other countries, they did stress the challenges and lessons learnt from the partnership, which must be considered in future projects and communication. Speakers also considered other socio economic challenges China is facing – such as poverty alliviation for example, and highlighted that these may have a higher priority but work on climate change has been done and there is a base to build upon.

Other project partners included Tyndall Centre – Oxford University, AEA, and the Universities of Edinburgh, Reading, Cambridge and Cranfield, as well as members of the Chinese government.

Further details of the report can be found here.