Devinder Sharma, Indian journalist, writer, thinker well known and respected for his views on food and trade policy, was recently here in the US. He addressed meetings on issues relating to sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, biotechnology, intellectual property rights, environment, food security, poverty and implications of the free trade paradigm for developing countries. In an interview with Jagdish Seth of India Post, the multifaceted personality spoke in detail about his work.
A trained agricultural scientist, Sharma has been a Visiting Fellow to the International Rice Research Institute, in the Philippines; Visiting Fellow at the School of Development Studies at the University of East Anglia, Norwich (UK); and a Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge (UK). A social leader, he was the founding member of the Chakriya Vikas Foundation (Foundation for Cyclic Development) in India, which has been able to bring about an upliftment in sustainable agriculture practices in almost a hundred villages in the poverty stricken belt of Bihar, in north India.
His recent works include, three books: GATT and India: The Politics of Agriculture; GATT to WTO: Seeds of Despair; and In the Famine Trap. His forthcoming title Keeping the Other Half Hungry is an incisive analysis of how globalization is accelerating the process of marginalisation of farmers in the Third World.
India Post: What is the focus of your current visit to the US?
Devinder Sharma: I came to participate in a workshop at Cornell University, which brought together a group of people to discuss "Is another food system possible?" The trip is also geared towards addressing audiences in different parts of America on matters related to the WTO, globalization and its impact on food security, the farming community and the hunger of developing countries.
IP: India is a country of two types - India & Bharat, stricken with poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and disease and the world in turn is divided into develop and developing. Each has its unique problems. How would your visit be useful to focus on these issues?
DS: This part of the world believes that the
agriculture system along with the trade paradigm that they are trying to build
with the WTO, which is supported by the World Bank and IMF, is the right kind
of formula for the developing countries and their economic development. But in
reality, they are doing more harm than good by the policies they are
perpetuating.
What happened recently at the Cancun Ministerial is mainly an indication of
the negative impacts of these policies on the developing countries. It was in
the early 90s that I left Indian Express as a development editor and began to
research on these issues; nobody is talking about agriculture, its impact on
farmers, or the real Bharat that you were talking about.
When I brought out my first book in 1993, nobody believed my nemesis and then
in 1995 when I brought out another book titled "GATT to WTO- Seeds of
Despair" after the WTO came into effect, still people believed that WTO
is going to be a wonderful boon to agriculture because they were promised that
the trade distorting subsidies of the western countries would be either phased
out or reduced according to a program and the developing countries would open
up their borders or phase out their tariffs for more market access. This
provision would have enabled farmers from India and other developing countries
to export food grains because the prices would go up and hence gain.
My thinking was that this is not going to be true. Since there is nothing free
in this free trade paradigm and all that they are doing is protecting their
own agriculture, eight years later after WTO, we find that developing
countries including India are all being negatively impacted.
In India the import of agricultural commodities has gone up four times. Edible
oil, for which India had become self sufficient in 1994, has now become 50
percent of our imports. Rs 120 billion is being spent on the import of edible
oil only and this is because we have lowered our duty and cheaper oil is
coming in from Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil, America. Countries are becoming
dumping grounds for cheaper food from the US. When we import cheaper food, we
are actually importing unemployment.
People are getting out from Bharat and moving into urban areas. This is
becoming such a serious socio-economic crisis but nobody is factoring in the
cost. A World Bank study done in 1995 shows that by 2010, people migrating
from rural to urban centers would be twice the combined population of UK,
France and Germany. This is happening because cheaper food is being brought in
and the mainline economists are giving us the impression that it is very
economical to import cheaper food rather than grow it. But the burning
question is, what do you do with the 600 million farmers in the world of which
every fourth is an Indian? If you add the farming population of China, then
half the world population is from these two countries. The challenge before us
is to ensure that agriculture becomes more productive and attractive given the
small land holding size of our farmers.
IP: The biotechnology sector has grown by leaps and bounds. How do you think biotech can help?
DS: The number of hungry people today in the world
is 800 mn and the number will increase to 1.4 bn by 2015. Therefore you need
to produce more and require genetic engineering.
If we were to judicially distribute the food available today according to the
norms set by WHO of 2400 calories/person for rural areas and 2700
calories/person for people in the urban areas, there would be enough food left
for 800 mn people. This means that we are providing more food than what the
earth requires, but the reality is that one part is consuming more whereas the
other part is becoming deficient. We are being told that the only way out of
this is to grow genetically modified crops. But in 2001, India had a record
grain surplus of 65 mn tons and 320 mn people going to bed hungry every night.
IP: In that scenario don't you think this is more of a problem of purchasing power and economics?
DS: What we are saying is that globalization and
genetically modified crops will take away the purchasing power of people in
the years to come. Bringing in cheaper food means that people are more and
more getting out of agriculture, which leads to joblessness. Genetically
modified crops are not meant for the small farmer. And these come with
corporate agriculture. So what we need is not food but job for the poor. The
focus globally should be on creating more jobs rather than taking away jobs.
For example, the employment elasticity for developing countries is 0.01, that
is for every 100 people displaced from agriculture only one will get a job.
The focus having shifted to industries, the growth is a jobless growth. So we
are in a paradigm where we are taking away jobs rather than adding jobs
because that is the way the corporates would gain.
IP: So you think if we formulate policies which provide jobs, it could help mitigate the problems?
DS: China is the only country in the world which is pulling out people from hunger, every year. They are doing it by creating jobs in the rural areas, ensuring that the infrastructure in the villages is neatly laid out so that there is a transfer of resources from the urban to the rural areas, ensuring that agriculture becomes attractive and policies are able to help farmers to grow more in order to get jobs back to agriculture. If people have money in their hand, they can buy food grains. Example: The Indian government has subsidized 65 mn tons of grains and has reduced the below the poverty line price to Rs 4/kilo and still people cannot buy this because they do not have purchasing power.
IP: Let's talk of our mini Punjab here in the US called Yuba City; here the peach growers are on the verge of bankruptcy and are competing with growers from other countries. The State of CA has stringent rules. Globalization is on the other side. The Yuba City farmers say that in future China would be exporting almonds, walnuts etc. and they want subsidies.
DS: Europe and America provide phenomenal
subsidies to agriculture. The OECD countries i.e. the group of 24 richest
countries trading block, provide daily subsidies to the tune of $1 bn. In
India for 600 mn farmers the yearly subsidies are $1bn, which are indirect
subsidies like cheaper fertilizers, pesticides seeds, water.
These subsidies need to be phased out but are actually mounting and that is
one of the charges against WTO that the rich countries were supposed to phase
out the subsidies but they have actually added America under the farm bill.
Bush has provided an additional $ 180bn of agricultural subsidies for the next
10 years and with 100 bn to be consumed in the first three years, he has
ensured that he is re-elected by pampering the agricultural class.
The tragedy is that it's not the small farmers who are getting the subsidies.
All of it is being cornered by the big farmers and the corporations. WTO is
telling India that your subsidies are trade distorting and you must remove
them. So when India, China and other group of G-21 nations protested in
Cancun, the objective was to repeal the injustice and protection of global
norms. Farmers are killing farmers and corporates are having the last laugh.
IP: What is the secret of China's progress in the industrial as well as the agricultural sector?
DS: China is under communist rule. Land there is
available at throwaway prices. Labor cost is cheaper even than India. They
know exactly where their economic strengths are and are pushing in that
direction. If they were to devote their commercial and consumer goods into
agriculture then China would suffer and face a terrible import crunch. No
wonder China was quick to join hands with India and Brazil at Cancun which
reveals that all is not well with their agriculture. India should stop
agriculture subsidies that this part of the world is providing to its farmers.
Unless their subsidies come to zero, countries like India will not open their
trade barrier or will not reduce the tariff, which has protected our
agriculture.
If America is not ashamed of protecting its farmers, why should India be? We
should follow a single point agenda that we will reduce our trade barriers in
the same proportion as they reduce their subsidies.
IP: In this scenario what hope do developing countries have and when would the dream be realized?
DS: Before 1995, it was not a dead world, we had
seen trade for the last 10,000 years and trade is always between equal
partners. Today's model tells us whether you have surplus or no surplus, you
must buy. But that was not the pattern earlier. All this is owing to misplaced
priorities. There is no frontal attack on eradicating poverty. We are trying
to remove poverty by trade. Somebody someday will stand up and say this is not
what we want. People's voice is the ultimate power to attaining equality and
justice.
Today it's the dream of a few companies which is controlling the global
agenda. I am sure people would understand and the process has already begun,
and now we realize the strength in numbers.
source: http://www.indiapost.com/new_ip/members/story.php?story_id=2126 21jan04