Dr Ashok Gulati

“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

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?

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

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 >>>>

Next

Next

Next

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
www.responsibletechnology.org

Dear Friend of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

I’d like to share with you our efforts and successes during the past year in building a Campaign that aims to engage a tipping point of millions of consumers who reject genetically modified foods; and to ask for your support for 2010 so that we can do even more.

You can read here about our 2009 achievements (PDF).

As our organization grows, so do the opportunities for making a difference. We are directly reaching hundreds of thousands of people; building a multi-generational cadre of activists; contributing to the efforts of protecting a healthy and sustainable agriculture system; launching fruitful partnerships with other NGOs and the most progressive companies; developing and distributing indispensable educational tools; and targeting schools to change the way our children eat.

We thank you for realizing the importance of our work! But we still need financial help to maintain and expand our range of activities.

Please consider an online donation: your dollars are put to work without wasting a dime. We are a no-frills, get-it-done group and our impact proves our effectiveness.

In the meantime, we’d like to thank you in advance for considering our request.

Warm regards,

Jeffrey Smith
Executive Director

P.S. To donate, please go to:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/Donate/index.cfm

Kochi, Aug. 25 The Cochin Rubber Merchants Association said that most of Kerala’s products are well protected under the recently concluded India-Asean agreement, which is expected to boost the trade between India and the member countries to $50 billion within a year.

Mr N. Radhakrishnan, President of the Association, said in a statement that an impartial assessment of the entire structure will show that Kerala need not be unduly worried about the Asean Agreement.

Kerala must try to maximise the market share among the Asean countries by taking advantage of its natural resources, technology and skilled manpower. The promotional measures adopted by countries such as Vietnam in the agri field are worth emulating.

There is concern in Kerala about the implications of the agreement on the State’s agricultural and marine products. However, a closer look at the aspects of the agreement relevant to Kerala’s economy shows that the apprehensions are unfounded.

He pointed out that coconut, rubber, cardamom, turmeric, vegetables, vanilla, ginger, cashew kernels and black tea are placed under Exclusion List and the existing duty on these items will not be reduced until India agrees with the member countries. He said that tariffs on items under the Exclusion List shall be reviewed each year by the member countries with a view to improving market access. Coconut is placed under Exclusion List with a 70 per cent duty, which will not change till 2019.

Rubber is placed under the Exclusion List with a 70 per cent duty on latex and 20 per cent on others with no change till 2019. Duty on rubber can be reduced only if India opts for it, which is quite unlikely.

Cardamom is placed under the Exclusion List with a 70 per cent duty with no change till 2019. Ginger and turmeric are also placed under the Exclusion List with 30 per cent duty each with no change till 2019.

Tea is placed under Special Products with existing duty of 100 per cent which will be regressively reduced to 45 per cent by 2019. Kerala’s share of production is only 6 per cent.

Coir Yarn and Coir Products are placed under the Normal Track with a duty of 10 per cent which will be reduced to zero within five years. Our major exports of these products are to countries outside Asean, he said. Already there is an acute shortage for coir fibre due to the heavy fall in production of coconuts in Kerala. Import of coir fibre from Asean nations for reprocessing, value addition and exports will generate more employment in the State and also give a fillip to the coir industry.

Courtesy : thehindubusinessline

Remarks:

India is self sufficient in production of Natural Rubber compared with  consumption. Now near about 98%  of imports are on ZERO percent import duty which is more than 80,000 Tonnes per year. When the rubber market is with  surplus  stock, the market prices will come down far below International prices. The joint venture of bulk dealers  & manufacturers are harmful to farmers. Many of the bulk dealers are co-operative societies who don’t want share the profits to Govt. treasury. The fluctuations of market price only will hit on farmers income. Now ASEAN agreement is not reflecting on rubber prices, because prices are  higher than International from few months continuously. In future ASEAN will be harmful on reduced price at  Kerala market under the pretext of ASEAN on 20% duty of small quantity can keep away the Indian manufacturers  from Indian market with the maximum benefits of ZERO percent import duty.

Kerala is  increasingly depends on other States for edible products. The vast cultivation of Natural Rubber will effect on more areas of fields like rice, vegetable, coconut, bananas etc.