Farmers can’t escape

Farmers lost their confidence on getting profit from Agriculture. From the bottom Panchayath level to Central spending so many crores in Agricultural sector. Farmers are not getting any benefit from it equally on their share in farming.  Once the economists said that the inflation is due to the price hike of food produces in India. Unfortunately the hike of Inflation visible from the past few decades. But the inflation of food produces is only 14.3% which is calculated from Wholesale Price Index (WPI). At World level maximum Countries are calculating inflation on Consumer Price Index (CPI).

In India, wholesale price index is divided into three groups:

1. Primary Articles (20.1 percent of total weight), Food Articles from the Primary Articles Group account for 14.3 percent of the total weight.

Food articles wholesale price is controlled by the middlemen. Farmers are not entitled to fix the selling price of his produces. The public distribution system, many other Govt agencies are available to control the price of food produces in the market. Thus farmers can’t get the benefit of inflation. If the inflation is calculated for 65 years  as base year 1949 the inflation rate may be higher up to 2000. To reduce the inflation rate the economists purposefully changes the base year periodically. In 1985 the labour wage of a male worker will get Rs. 20 per day and now he gets Rs. 700 per day due to Inflation. Unfortunately any of the agricultural produce gone up below 4 times. The salary and pension are increase more than 35 times including DA. HRA, TA, Promotion and other allowances are above the inflation rate.

2. Fuel and Power (14.9 percent)

The price of Fuel and Power are controlled by the State and Central Govts. These will be hiked on the basis of inflation which is a burden for farmers.

3. Manufactured Products (65 percent).The most important components of the Manufactured Products Group are:-

(i) Chemicals and Chemical products (12 percent of the total weight)

(ii) Basic Metals, Alloys and Metal Products (10.8 percent)

(iii) Machinery and Machine Tools (8.9 percent)

(iv)Textiles (7.3 percent)

(v) Transport, Equipment and Parts (5.2 percent)

All these manufactured products price are fixed by the Manufacturers with profit and other expenses.  BICPstands for Bureau of Industrial Costs and Pricing (India), they will not harm the industry on pricing.

The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices  giving reports to Govt of India. All reports by CACP are in papers only, because farmers are not aware on these reports and farmers are not united to fetch the positive result from it. An interesting Study  on the price indices of few Agricultural produces in Kerala which was submitted to CACP by Dr. Yageen Thomas in 2007, who was the head of Statistics Dept in Kerala University.  A Report  Submitted before the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices related with Coconut and it’s byproducts in 2008 by Dr. Yageen Thomas. Coconut Development Board  spending more money for the development of farmers. In 1985 for plucking coconuts from 50 trees I have to give 15 coconuts and Rs. 2 only. For the the 15 coconuts he was able to sell it at Rs. 75  where the labour wage of a male worker in agricultural sector was Rs. 20. Now the farmers have to give Rs. 1000 for plucking coconut from 50 trees. Above all shortage of workforce in Kerala is an another issue. Many of the labour in Kerala including rubber tapping now work force from North Eastern States who are able to get the wage in their States from Rs. 150 to 200 per day. Kerala is a Gulf for them to fetch a better income to their families. Young educated in Kerala are not interested in Agriculture, they need white color job  to get a bride or groom at their status. How ever inflation goes up and farmers income is going down which creates waste land every where. The farmers or work force are not interested to build their children  on their own standard. For better income to farmers they are using fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides for better yield which is harmful to the environment and health of flies, Animals, livestock and human. With out controlling the inflation farmer can’t escape from his suicide attempts. Thus the calculation of Inflation must be on Food Articles WPI  only. Farmers capability to use manufactured products is a must for the economic growth and self sufficiency of the Nation.

A reply to the editorial of thehindubusinessline

Rope in private players for crop purchases to make MSP effective: CACP chief

 

Dr Ashok Gulati

New Delhi, March 21:

The Centre should rope in private corporates to procure grains, pulses and oilseeds on its behalf for more effective implementation of the minimum support price (MSP) mechanism, feels Dr Ashok Gulati, Chairman, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).

“You can’t simply announce an MSP and forget about it. The Government is morally obliged to ensure that farmers get the declared floor price. If it cannot do that on its own, the job could be entrusted to private players on the same terms as offered to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) or Nafed (National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation),” the head of the crop pricing advisory body told Business Line.

From storage to procurement

“When you have public private partnership (PPP) in storage, there is no reason why it cannot be extended to procurement and MSP operations. If the aim is to deliver MSP to farmers, does it matter whether it is done through FCI or ITC, Mahindra ShubhLabh and DSCL Hariyali Kisaan Bazaar?” Dr Gulati pointed out.

He illustrated the case of sunflower, where the Centre, in 2008-09, announced a steep MSP hike from Rs 1,510 to Rs 2,215 a quintal. But with no Government buyers, farmers realised less than Rs 2,000 even in Punjab, where they constitute a strong lobby.

The same story holds for pulses — the MSPs of which have been raised by 20-30 per cent this year — or paddy and wheat sold in eastern Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, where neither the FCI nor the State agencies open purchase centres during the harvesting season.

According to Dr Gulati, once big corporates — for that matter, even cooperatives and producers’ companies — are allowed to procure on Government account and guaranteed a minimum business based on competitive tendering and transparent rules of MSP enforcement, it will set off a virtuous process.

“You would incentivise the creation of a back-end infrastructure for marketing of farm produce, especially in crops and regions where MSP exists only in name,” he noted.

New revenue stream

If the Centre were to heed Dr Gulati’s advice, it would open up a new business opportunity for ITC, Hindustan Unilever and Britannia Industries, which today buy wheat mainly to meet their branded atta or bread requirements. These corporates also undertake exports and domestic trading of farm commodities on their own account.

Public-Private Partnership in MSP operations can potentially generate large revenues by way of commission fees. The Centre annually procures 25-26 mt of wheat and 45-46 mt of paddy. These purchases, at their current MSPs of Rs 11,200 and Rs 10,000 a tonne, are worth around Rs 75,000 crore.

“The system could be tried out first in States that have reformed their Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee laws to enable direct purchases from farmers. Low mandi levies and purchase taxes can be an additional inducement for corporates to go to UP and Bihar rather than Punjab and Haryana,” Dr Gulati added.

Private hand in procurement

With many regions lacking the agencies to enforce MSPs, it is time to rope private players into the business of buying on Government account.

March 24, 2011:

The Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Dr Ashok Gulati, has recently called for involving private players in official crop procurement operations. He has a point. Everybody knows how ineffective and skewed the current minimum support price (MSP) mechanism is, being essentially confined to wheat and paddy. Even within that, more than half the rice for the Central pool is procured from Punjab and Andhra Pradesh, which account for hardly a quarter of the country’s total output. The imbalance is even more in wheat, where roughly 70 per cent of government purchases are from Punjab and Haryana. In all other crops and regions, there are no agencies to enforce MSPs that exist largely in name. Farmers are, hence, often at the mercy of traders during harvest time, with no means to stagger sales of their crop. Restricting the MSP’s effective scope to fine cereals also disincentivises cultivation of less water-intensive oilseeds, pulses, cotton or maize, the production of which are, moreover, not keeping pace with rising incomes and diversification of food baskets. Indeed, there is nothing more perverse than Punjab farmers mining already depleted groundwater reserves to grow paddy. But, then, they are only responding rationally to a system that has no Food Corporation of India (FCI) to pay MSP for arhar or sunflower.

That raises a question: Do we really believe only an FCI or a National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (Nafed) can deliver MSP to farmers? Why can’t the Centre also assign the task to private players which are already buying and selling farm produce for meeting their branded product requirements or for proprietary trading purposes? There is no reason for not roping them into the business of buying on Government account, as Dr Gulati has argued in an interview to this newspaper. As Deng Xiaoping said, the colour of the cat matters little so long as it catches the mice. And in the case of MSP, one can expect private corporates — having greater procedural flexibility and no legacy of excess manpower — to do at least a more cost-effective job.

Allowing the private sector to procure crops on behalf of the Government presents a potentially large revenue opportunity for agri-business corporates. Ideally, it should help throw up new players in this space similar to the fresh lot of contractors spawned by the National Highways Development Project or the Delhi Metro. But what a viable public private partnership model in official MSP operations can do, above all, is to stimulate the creation of much-needed backend agricultural marketing infrastructure. This is more pertinent to crops and regions where MSPs are just a mirage. Dr Gulati’s idea is certainly worth debating — and implementing.

A Reply to the Editorial of thehindubusinessline:

The editorial on thehindubusinessline.com dated 24th March 2011 “Private hand in procurement” posses several moot questions. The Govt of India has instituted MSP procurement for 15 Khariff Crops and 10 Rabi Crops. The system has been functioning for more than two decades though with lot of limitations. The Food Corporation of India, Nafed, Jute Corporation of India etc are the nodal agencies for procurement of Crops from the farmers at MSP rates. If properly monitored this system will be beneficial to the poor farmers who are usually subject to exploitation by traders and middlemen. Unfortunately there are several cases. Where even the officials connive with traders and both wisk away the real benefit that ought to have gone to the genuine farmers. Most drastically affected lot are small and marginal farmers. In this scenario I wonder what prompted CACP to make a suggestion that private hand in procurement in Official Operations.

How can one be sure that such a system will bring in benefit to the suffering farmers of India?

Become a member today

Yes, cows are coming to the Rodale Institute! We know a diversified farm is a healthy farm, and after years of building our soil and our research with cropping-systems only, it is time to invite grazing livestock back to the farm. This important work is one of the many ways in which we work to improve organic farming and food production. But we need your help.

Become a member today!

Your membership makes possible new projects–like our dairy cow initiative– and ensures the continuation of our many other Rodale Institute initiatives in research, outreach and education.

Right now we’re preparing our fields to incorporate our neighboring farm’s dairy herd of 125 cows into our crop rotation.

Lean over the fence with our members-only newsletter to share in the progress of the herd and keep up-to-date on all the projects happening around the farm you’ve helped support.

Together we can:

Reveal the core benefits—environmental and economical—of an integrated crop and livestock rotation.

Share with farmers the benefits and best practices of incorporating grazing livestock back onto their land.

Spread the word by sharing our experiences and research findings with scientists, policy-makers, gardeners and consumers.

Secure the future of a healthy food supply.
Become a member today. Our health depends upon it!

Kisan Swaraj yatra – coming to Kerala – Can we join the campaign

Dear Friends,

I hope you remember that since the last year and earlier this year, we all joined the  campaign against G M crops in India.  The response was very encouraging and we were able to communicate message to the people, media as well as to state govt. Although with the active efforts of Minister of Environment and Forest Mr. Jaiam Ramesh Govt. of India and with active support of State Governments like Kerala, has temporarily stopped the commercial cultivation of GM Brinjal but many other issues are still there which needs strong discussion and advocacy. Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), a network of individuals and organizations across the country that has grown out of this movement has decided to initiate these issues.

The Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), has announced that a Kisan Swaraj Yatra would set off from Sabarmati Ashram on October 2nd 2010, to remind all Indians of our hard-won independence and the insidious ways in which agri-business corporations, supported by the State are taking this independence and sovereignty away, especially with regard to our food and farming. This Yatra is a call for joining forces to save Indian farming and farmers mired in deep distress and to forge a sustainable path forward for Indian farming.

The Yatra will highlight issues such as seeds sovereignty, land grab, climate change, food sovereignty and security, GE seeds, chemical pesticides, farm produce pricing, etc. that directly and indirectly affect small farmers in addition to bringing up a debate around the proposed Green Revolution in Eastern India, the tie-ups that several governments have with MNCs like Monsanto, the continuing saga of farmers suicides and so on.

The Yatra will also raise the concerns over free trade and bilateral agreements, the proposed food security and seeds laws, BRAI Bill, the handing over of public resources for private gains etc. The Kisan Swaraj Yatra will also draw in urban consumers into its fold and will raise issues of food safety, consumer choices etc. The Yatra will celebrate the conservation of diversity by farmers, farmers knowledge and will highlight the successes of ecological farming. The participants will develop concurrent events, programmes, campaigns in accordance with the needs and priorities in their respective states.

The Yatra will visit Kerala from 26th to 29th of October. A concept note in English is attached. We have to plan the programmes for Kerala.  The Yatra will travel through Kasaragod, Kannur, Kozhikode, Malappuram and Palakkad.

To plan this we are calling a meeting along with Jaiva Karshaka Samithi and One Earth One Life on 15th September 2010 at Kozhikode at 11.00 am.  Please ensure you are able to participate in this meeting.  Please call Sridhar ( 09995358205) for details of venue of this planning meeting.

Hope for an active participation, cooperation and involvement in the Kisan Swaraj Yatra. At the bottom  is the concept note, travel details and a press release.

Regards:

Usha S (9447022775)

Sridhar R (9995358205)

Thanal

H-3, Jawaharnagar, Kawdiar P.O. Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
India PIN 695 003
Tel / Fax: +91 471 2727150
Email: mail.thanal@gmail.com
www.thanal.co.in
www.save-our-rice.net
www.zerowastekovalam.org

Concept note, travel details and a press release.

swaraj yatra-concept note-aug.25

KSY anncmnt-PR-aug.25

Natural Rubber Prices

A letter send to Google Groups like FEC and Trivandrum Bloggers

Prices for the month of July 2010: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AjJUDQUJ7CS-dG9jTldCTzVHbXlEbU50WFE1ZENUT0E&hl=en&gid=5

The average price of Latex 60% drc changed at a higher level of Rs. 20375/Quintal. Can anybody say how it happens?

The leaders of Political Parties are against Import of Natural Rubber of One Lakh Tonnes at 7.5% Import Duty. But this import will be a reason for the price hike of International Price. The Domestic prices were higher at earlier month with a difference approximately Rs. 30/Kg when Indian Rubber Board Published the highest month end stocks. The Price difference between RSS 4 and Vyaapari Vila of Manorama (Which is not covered by the Board or on any Govt records) is varying according to their plans of the Biggest Manufacturer in India. Eg. Prices of June 2010 with a difference approximately Rs. 5 per Kg and Aug 2010 with a difference above Rs. 15 per Kg on many days of the month. If a manufacturer can play a game on prices where grading under the pretext of visual grading system we can imagine what will happen.

My conclusion: If the month end stock published by the Rubber Board is higher through continuous Missing Figures and import in front of the season of peak production to bring the prices down to export on lower prices (by the co-operative societies to reduce the profit share to the Govt of Kerala) to bring down the International prices can’t fulfill.  Because RTI Act 2005 is available for us to get the details of Export which is controlled by the Rubber Board.

Sorry for my poor English.

WTO was a failure to reduce the prices of Agricultural Commodities and now the time is for ASEAN. Just wait and see what will happen.

See the compiled study by a farmer on Indian Rubber Statistics Click here >>>>

Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal Part1

Article is posted in The Hindu

Next

Decision on commercialisation of bt-brinjal part2

Previous Post

Next

Decision on commercialisation of bt-brinjal part3

Previous Post

Next

Decision on commercialisation of bt-brinjal part4

Previous Post

2009 highlights – responsible technology

INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY

2009 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Why we need and deserve your support!
“The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awareness” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply. This was the prediction of Supermarket News, a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. They specifically credit the Institute for Responsible Technology and our new Non-GMO Shopping Guide site as one of the key reasons for this coming change. This is just one of many indications that our tipping point is on its way, and that our strategy is the right one. The success of our Campaign for Healthier Eating in America accelerated dramatically in 2009. We have new partners in all the key sectors, and especially among retailers, health organizations, sustainable agriculture and environmental NGOs, and we are reaching into new groups—like restaurants, religious organizations, parents and many more. We hired two outstanding professionals with extensive experience in coalition building, business
development and sales, who are establishing a national network of organizations and opinion leaders to disseminate our materials to tens of millions of people. In addition, our new internet marketing team is enhancing our website and social media presence. We are more effective than ever at responding to the overwhelming enthusiasm, good will, and opportunities that we generate in the US and around the world.

2009 HIGHLIGHTS

Building Scientific Support for the Mission
The first medical professional association in the US to take an official position warning of the health risks of GM (genetically modified) food—the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)—called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, labeling, and asked doctors to prescribe
non-GMO diets and provide educational materials to all patients. This was the result, in part, of four years of IRT work, including three presentations by Jeffrey at their conferences. He received an award at their October conference, where he also spoke. Please see AAEM’s position paper.
Hawaii Organizes!
Jeffrey was invited by the coalition of anti-GMO groups in Hawaii to give a speaking tour. He spoke to packed audiences on four islands, met with local activists to launch new strategic initiatives, and generated media coverage reaching an estimated 500,000 people. He testified before the Big Island County
Council. Less than two months after Jeffrey’s Hawaii tour, two county councils passed resolutions against GMOs. Non-GMO Education Centers were placed in natural food stores statewide, GMO films were shown at public venues and on TV, and a team of students/staff at the University of Hawaii has emerged to address the GMO issue in Hawaii.

Sugar Beets Registry

Last February, on Valentine’s Day, a Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry was launched with the support of 70+ natural foods companies who oppose the introduction of sugar from GM Sugar Beets (planted in 2008) into our food supply. These companies pledged to avoid using GM sugar in their products and the list continues to grow with now more than 100 companies onboard. IRT and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) headed a coalition of 12 watchdog groups who sponsored the Registry. These efforts have expanded into Canada as well.
A Major Victory in Kansas
In response to consumer rejection of milk containing bovine growth hormone (rbST/rbGH), Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Publix, Yoplait, Dannon, and 58 of the top 100 dairies have committed to stop using this the drug for some or all of their product lines. As a counter-move, rbGH proponents petitioned state governments, asking them to ban rbGH-free labeling of dairy products. IRT is part of a coalition of organizations that have success-fully fought off these attempts in several states (although some states now require a disclaimer on the package claiming no difference in milk from treated cows). Following our intensive
education campaign, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius last April vetoed legislation that would hamper a company’s labeling of rbGH-free products.
Expo West
The genetically modified organisms (GMO) issue was center stage for the Natural Foods industry last March, starting with a panel discussion with Michael Funk of UNFI, John Fagan of Genetic ID, and Michael Hansen of Consumers Union. A second meeting featured a presentation by Jeffrey Smith, aimed at helping manufacturers and retailers work together to create the tipping point in consumer demand to eliminate GMOs in the marketplace. Non-GMO Shopping Guides were
included in 15,000 shopping bags handed out by New Hope Natural Media, the show organizer.
Non-GMO Shopping Guide
First produced in October 2008—in conjunction with the Center for Food Safety—the Non-GMO Shopping Guide is now in its third edition, with over 40 additional companies and 70 new brands listed. Manufacturers of non-GMO brands are listed in the Shopping Guide as a free public service. We are partnering with food industry leaders, such as Organic Valley Family of Farms, to display
Shopping Guides and hand them out at every veue they visit nationwide. The Guide is also distributed for free to retailers by UNFI.
Stand-Alone Shopping Guide Web Site
We created a stand-alone Website for the Shopping Guide, where consumers can easily view the categories that interest them. They can also download or order the Guide. The site features sponsors’ logos as live links to their homepage and products. The new site was credited in Supermarket News as pivotal in the coming rise of consumer awareness about GMOs.
New Media and Social Networking Partnerships
IRT has entered into a Web 2.0 relationship with regular blogs on Huffington Post, and the No GMO Challenge, a blogsite encouraging people to stay free from GMOs for 30 days. Our presence on the Internet now also includes YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. These new media partnerships help bring the non-GMO “healthier eating” message to life across America. The popular consumer health website—Mercola.com—is just one of hundreds of sites that publishes our content and supports us with regular non-GMO features.
Presentations Focused Towards Activism
Jeffrey Smith’s presentations continue to inspire local GMO activism. In 2009 he spoke at more than a dozen festivals, conferences and events and received a standing ovation from over 250 doctors at the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) annual conference in San Diego.
Developing Activists’ Network
In 2009, IRT has nurtured dozens of valuable relationships with volunteer activists in 25 states, who are strategizing to achieve wide impact in their community. They receive free materials, guidance and support from our Director of Community Networks, Margherita Pagni.
Partnerships with NGOs and Outreach to Their Constituencies
We identified 150+ organizations and groups who would likely disseminate educational tools to their constituents, urging them to avoid GMOs, support sustainable agriculture and participate in our Campaign. We have established at least initial contact with half of them and have begun to work closely with several organizations that have large memberships, such as the Weston A. Price Foundation, Citizens for Health, the Holistic Moms Network, the Oregon Country
Fair, and dozens more.
GM-Free School Project
We developed contacts in several locations interested in implementing GM-free schools, by organizing parents, students, and school officials to switch from GMO diets to healthy, fresh, non-GMO school meals.
Retailers
We have placed GMO educational materials into natural food stores around the nation, and a growing number of stores are utilizing our Retailer Campaign Kit to reach out to their communities. Kari Miller, our new Director of Strategic Relationships, works with retailers, large institutions and corporations to develop active partnerships.
Partnerships with Magazines and Websites
Not only have we authored or inspired several magazine articles around the world, several publishers have committed to raising public awareness about GMOs.
Urban Garden Magazine just released an extensive cover story by Jeffrey Smith on the harmful effects of GMOs, and the cover up. They will publish regular features and post our materials on their blog.
Total Health Magazine published a two-page spread of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and will also include regular GMO-related features.
2009 ACHIEVEMENTS ABROAD
Bollywood GMO Documentary Drives India Towards Tipping Point
Unprecedented anti-GMO fervor has swept India, due to a film by Bollywood superstar producer Mahesh Bhatt. The 30-minute documentary, Poison on the Platter, was largely based on Jeffrey Smith’s book Genetic Roulette. While in India last year, Jeffrey gave presentations to India’s influential National Planning Commission, top government officials in several states, members of the Indian Medical Association, and the World Congress of Ayurveda. He made public
appearances in nineteen cities around the country, launched the Indian edition of Genetic Roulette, and was featured in more than one hundred articles and TV reports.
Brazil
In May, Jeffrey introduced the Portuguese edition of Genetic Roulette and gave a talk before the Governor of the State of Parana and three hundred staff that was broadcast on national television and radio. In Brasilia, Jeffrey met with several leading politicians, was introduced on the floor of the Senate, and was interviewed on national Senate TV. He was also interviewed on the most influential national TV talk show.

LOOKING FORWARD

We will continue to build on the momentum created in 2009 towards the tipping point of consumer rejection of GM foods. We plan to launch several GM-free school projects, bring on board a large contingent of doctors, health care practitioners and nutritionists willing to speak out against GMOs, continue to build and empower our growing body of volunteers, train speakers and achieve additional media exposure on GMO-related issues.
Institute for Responsible Technology
P.O. Box 469
Fairfield, IA 52556
(641) 209-1765
info@responsibletechnology.org
http://www.responsibletechnology.org