Greenpeace has Govt’s ear, farmers turn shrill

Say NGO influenced Bt cotton decision

Sonu Jain / The Indian Express 22jun01

New Delhi, June 22: THE build-up to the Centre’s decision to extend the trial period for Bt cotton by a year is more interesting than the decision itself: the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) invited farmers, seed companies to a dialogue on whether Bt cotton should be grown commercially, and surprise, surprise, ‘‘foreign NGO’’ Greenpeace was part of what the Ministry called an ‘open discussion behind closed doors’.

Much to the farmers’ chagrin and environmentalists’ delight, the very next day, the government announced its decision to extend the trial period by a year.

Farmers who were waiting with fingers crossed for commercial approval of pest-resistant Bt cotton promptly alleged that the Ministry had been influenced by Greenpeace. According to them, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the chairpersonship of A.M.Gokhale, additional secretary, MoEF, had given Greenpeace undue importance by inviting it for the meeting.

‘‘When countries like China, Egypt and Pakistan are growing Bt cotton, how can we compete in the world market? With this decision, it will take years before anything will move,’’ said Manpreet Badal, whose Badal village in Punjab was chosen for trials. For him, getting permission for trials was an uphill task and had been made possible after the intervention of Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal.

Greenpeace itself was pleasantly surprised to be invited. ‘‘For us, it was a breakthrough. We cannot take credit for the decision, we were at best catalysts,’’ said Michelle Chawla, Greenpeace representative in Delhi.

For a government body to invite Greenpeace for a dialogue was unusual by any standards, allege seed companies. Raju Barwale, Managing Director of
‘‘Mahyco is open to discussion and dialogue with any person or organisation with an open mind ... Unfortunately, we are seeing a deliberate attempt on the part of some organisations to spread disinformation.’’

However, Gokhale, who had earlier served as chief secretary of Nagaland, said the invitation has nothing to do with internal security or politics.

‘‘I decided to do so because Greenpeace had been persistent in their criticism and I realised that GEAC was acting like a traffic policemen between interested parties,’’ said Gokhale. ‘‘In any case, it is good to be transparent. The intention was to expose Greenpeace more than anything else.’’

According to a GEAC member, the meeting served an important purpose: ‘‘Contrary to what farmers say, Greenpeace has been put in place as it is now seen as anti-farmer,’’ said the member.

‘‘The backlash is unwarranted. We were expressing the concerns of small and marginal farmers. We wanted to know whose concerns the farmers present in the meetings articulating. When we asked them a question about the cost-benefit of the new Bt seeds, they did not have any answer,’’ countered Chawla.

According to GEAC members, it is a misconception that they have been influenced by Greenpeace’s arguments.

‘‘The truth is that GEAC members themselves were not convinced about the evidence and conclusions drawn after test results of the previous years,’’ said Gokhale.

Agreeing that there were delays which could have been avoided, the GEAC felt that since last year, sowing had been delayed a generation of pests had come and gone by the time the test samples were taken. ‘‘There were other concerns where there was lack of unanimity with the members,’’ said Gokhale.

The GEAC has now expanded its scope and involved the Indian Council of Agriculture (ICAR). ‘‘After it is a question of life and death, we will only take a decision when there is a clear consensus among all the members,’’ said Gokhale.