december 2009 national magazine of farmers voice

8/7/2019 DECEMBER 2009 National Magazine of Farmers Voice

1/31


2/31

1Kisan Ki Awaaz December, 2009

Editor :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary,

President,

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj,

F-1/A, Pandav Nagar,

Delhi-110091

Advisory Board :

Ashok B. Sharma

S. P. Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd.

Lingraj B. PatilDr. Mangesh Deshmukh

Dr. R.B. Thakare

D. Guruswamy, Adv.

Rajesh Sharma Bittoo

Pratap Singh, DIG Retd.

Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv.

K. Sareen

Sharad Agnihotri

Printed & Published by :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf of

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj.

Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, Okhla

Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20.

Published at :

F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091

Mob.:9810331366, Telefax:011-

22751281,

E-mail:[email protected]

The views expressed by theauthors are their own. The

editor does not acceptresponsibility for returningunsolicited publication material.

Disputes arising if any will beunder Jurisdiction of DelhiCourts.

Single copy Rs. 25/-, Annual Rs. 300/

-

Complimentary Copy

Suggestions for improvement are invited

Vol. 1 No. 2 December, 2009

KISAN KI AWAAZ National Magazine of Farmers Voice

CONTENTS

Editorial 2

World leaders race to save Copenhagen 3 Martin Khor

Getting Real About Climate Change in the Himalaya : Beyond 7 Panicand Complacency

Dr. Vandana Shiva

Climate chaos : What prospects from Copenhagen ? 9 Percy F. Makombe

TRADE : A Lost Decade for the WTO ? 12 Peter Costantini

Opening the door to Bt Brinjal, a step towards disaster 19 Praful Bidwai

Will Geneva, Copenhagen meets render trade and 22climate justice

Ashok B. Sharma

Brazil suspends Syngenta agrochemicals 25

G20 mutes its demand at the cost of ifs farmers 26 Afsar Jafri

Effects of climate change and efforts ----- 28 Dr. R.B. Thakare

WTOs Lamy faulted for move to serve 31 Daniel Pruzin

Increase in Pesticide Consumption on GM Crops 32 Charles Benbrooke

New Subscription

Annual subscription charge of Rs 300/- for our monthly journal

'KISAN KI AWAAZ' may please be sent by cheque/Draft, drawn

in favour of Kisan Ki Awaaz, F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-

110091.


3/31

2 Kisan Ki Awaaz December, 2009

EditorialEditorialEditorialEditorialEditorial

Krishan Bir ChaudharyKrishan Bir ChaudharyKrishan Bir ChaudharyKrishan Bir ChaudharyKrishan Bir Chaudhary

Russia a friend in need and a friend indeed

Russia has once again reaffirmed its long-time tested friendship with India. Understanding the need for a multi-

polar world and for collectively tackling global problems like financial crisis, energy and food security and climatechange, it has said that India is a deserving and strong candidate for a permanent seat in an expanded UN

Security Council.

Russia has also supported Indias full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and in the

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and also called for lifting the moratorium on expanding the APEC member-

ship. Feeling the need for Russias involvement in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) India has supported Russia

joining that dialogue forum at the 8th ASM scheduled in Brussels in 2010.

These assurances and support to India came in the form of the joint declaration signed by both the countries on

December 8, 2009 on the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh to Russia. TheStrategic Partnership between the two countries calls for building a new, democratic and fair multi-polar world

order-based on collective approaches, supremacy of international law and adherence to the goals and principles

enshrined in the UN Charter.

Russia also assured India in bilateral energy cooperation, including that in the area of nuclear energy, cooperation

in meeting the threat of extremely dangerous infectious and other contagious diseases, counter-terrorism, timely

response to natural and man-made disasters and stability in Asia-Pacific, particularly in Afghanistan. Both sides

agreed to work for global non-proliferation and complete and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons, ensuring

international information security and preventing deployment of weapons in outer space.

The nature of cooperation and support and the role assigned to India by Russia far outweighs that given by the USpresident Obama to India during the recent visit of the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh to that country

Apart from the traditionally strong cooperation in space and defence, India can benefit from Russias rich deposits

of hydrocarbons and expertise in infrastructure building, particularly construction and engineering. Russia can

benefit from Indias expertise in pharmaceutical, information technology and communication sectors. There is

natural complementary between the two countries in rough diamond trade. Russia is the largest producer and India

is the centre for cutting and polishing. Both sides have agreed to boost bilateral merchandise trade to $ 20 billion

by 2015.

The friendship between the two countries dates back to the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1947, after

India got independence from UKs dirty colonial regime. The multifaceted India-Russia relationship is not influ-

enced by the engagement of these two countries with the rest of the world. The early foundation of the India-

Russia (then Soviet Union) friendship was laid by the first Prime Minister of India, Pt Jawaharlal Nehru who opted

for keeping equidistance from two global power blocs the United States and the Soviet Union and co-founded

the Non-Aligned Movement. India-Russia relationship was further strengthened by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi

who liberated Bangladesh with Soviet Unions moral support


4/31


Copenhagen, 7 November

The lead up to Copenhagen saw a flurry ofactivities by some world leaders to give impetusto the highly anticipated conference on climate

change, after gloom cast on it when it was madeknown that there would be no legally bindingagreement to be expected from it.

President Barack Obama of the United States andPresident Hu Jintao of China on 26 Novemberannounced 2020 targets for their countries. For theUS this would be cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

For China, it would be reducing the emissionintensity of its gross national product (GNP).

These announcements by the two most importantcountries in terms of total emissions gave a boostto the mood in climate politics just a week beforedelegates arrive for the Copenhagen meeting.

In reality, the chances of the success ofCopenhagen are in the balance. The definition ofwhat would constitute success has changed, has

in fact been downgraded. No longer is there anypossibility of a final set of agreements. There aredeep divisions on key issues that cannot beresolved in time.

At best, Copenhagen will come up with aframework intended to lead to a final deal. Butmany leaders hope that this framework can atleast have some key details.

For example, the United Kingdoms climateminister Ed Miliband says that there have to be

figures on the emission reduction targets ofdeveloped countries, and on adequate finances fordeveloping countries, otherwise Copenhagen willbe a failure.

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)Summit in Singapore, a breakfast meeting ofleaders that included US President Barack Obama

concluded that there would not be a legally-

binding agreement, but some kind of politicaldeclaration that would somehow be binding.

To many analysts, this constitutes a climb-downfrom the seal the deal goal for which the UNSecretary General Ban Ki Moon has campaigned. Noone is sure what a political declaration would looklike and how this can be binding or have legaleffect.

The UN General Assembly convened a meeting on19 November to discuss the status of the climate talks.

At that meeting, the developing countries stronglyattacked the lack of commitment by the developedcountries either to cut their emissions or to providefinancing to developing countries, or even to retainthe legally-binding Kyoto Protocol. This, they said,is what has caused the downgrading ofexpectations for Copenhagen.

Mr. Ban tried to reassure the General Assemblythat Copenhagen is still on track. He said thatnews reports had recently portrayed that

Copenhagen is destined to be a disappointment,but this was wrong. He countered this perceptionwith examples of individual countries pledges onemissions reduction.

However, the Chair of the G77, AmbassadorAbdalmahmood Mohamad of Sudan, speaking onbehalf of the Group and China said the developingcountries were extremely disappointed that theCopenhagen Conference did not seem to be ableto result in the final outcomes needed and this wasa major setback. It said Parties should not pretend

otherwise by using words such as a legallybinding political declaration.

For the G77 and China, Copenhagens mostimportant outcome should be adopting the secondcommitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the treatythat implements the legal commitment of industrialisedcountries to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.

World leaders race to save Copenhagen*Martin Khor


5/31


Instead the developed countries are moving to exitfrom this Protocol, and this is the main cause of thepresent impasse. Without a Kyoto Protocol decision,Copenhagen cannot succeed, said the Group.

Grenada, speaking for the Alliance of Small IslandStates (AOSIS) said the group was concerned overattempts to water down the results of Copenhagen.It insisted that an internationally legally bindingoutcome at Copenhagen is both technically andlegally feasible.

At the end of the 2-hour session, Mr. Banacknowledged the deep concerns of the developingcountries about there being a major setback or deepdisappointment as there would be no treaty agreedupon in Copenhagen. But this should not be seen as

a failure as Copenhagen will lay the foundation fora legally-binding agreement, he said.

However, as the meeting ended, the mood amongmany delegates, at least those from developingcountries, was that there would be a setback inCopenhagen.

Several delegates said they had the impression afterlistening to the speakers that the conference wouldnot result in a final legally binding outcome, and theywere uncertain whether there would be a clear

decision on the emission reduction commitments ofdeveloped countries, which is the foundation ofmany other decisions.

The G77 and China highlighted their most seriousconcern, that many developed country Parties of theKyoto Protocol want to move away from thisProtocol and move towards another agreement ofwhich the nature is not understood.

There is a danger of a downgrading of the

commitments of developed countries from aninternationally legally binding commitment in theKyoto Protocol to an inferior agreement involvingeach country pledging its national programme, withno aggregate figure for developed countries overall,and which is not legally binding, said the SudaneseAmbassador.

The Group was also very disappointed with the very

low overall reduction figure arising from the nationalannouncements from developed countries so far,which is only 12 to 19 per cent (including the US)below 1990 levels.

The main impasse that has led to downgrading ofexpectations in Copenhagen is the uncertaintycaused by the actions of the developed countries onwhether they are willing to commit to a secondperiod for the Kyoto Protocol, and whether theiremission reduction targets are good enough, saidthe G77 Chair.

He asked if the Secretary General and the Denmarkrepresentative could assure the Group that thedeveloped country members of the Kyoto Protocolwill remain in the Protocol and will make adequate

commitments of at least 40% cut by 2020 (from 1990levels), and will finish the negotiations in the KyotoProtocol track by the time Copenhagen is concluded.Without such an assurance, it will be hard to seehow Copenhagen will be a success, he said.

The Copenhagen Conference must not end only withmere rhetorical political statements. There must beconcrete commitments from the developed countrieson their emission reduction figures, andcommitments on finance, as well as decisions toestablish a finance mechanism and a technology

mechanism.

Earlier, Mr. Ban said he believed that Parties willreach a deal in Copenhagen that sets the stage for abinding treaty as soon as possible in 2010. He saidthat political momentum was building almost daily.He urged Parties to stay positive, come toCopenhagen and seal a deal.

Despite last weeks announcements by the US andChinese Presidents, the prospects are not so bright

that Copenhagen will seal the final deal. Hopefullythe Conference can agree to a framework and basisof an eventual deal in 2010 that is both fair andeffective.

* Executive Director, South Center


6/31



7/31



8/31


Getting Real About Climate Change in the Himalaya: BeyondPanic and Complacency

The Himalaya support nearlyhalf of humanityHim means snow

alaya means mountain.The mountains of snow have alsobeen called the third pole, sincethey are the third largest body ofsnow on our planet after theAntarctic and Artic.

Over the last year, Navdanya /Research Foundation teams have

worked with local communities inUttarakhand and Ladakh toassess the impact of climatechange on their ecosystems andeconomies and to evolveparticipatory plans for climatechange adaptation. From 6th to 13th

of September we undertook aclimate yatra from Dehradun inUttarakhand to Leh in Ladakh.

The signals from the ground are

very clear, and very disturbing.There has been a radical reductionin snowfall. Many villages thatgot snow a few decades back nolonger receive snowfall. Where itstill falls, it has decreaseddramatically. This is leading to athinning, and often adisappearance of glaciers. Thesnowline is moving upwards,reducing the snow cover of the

Himalaya.

In regions like Ladakh which is ahigh altitude desert, snow meltfrom glaciers provides the onlysource of water. When instead ofsnow in winter Ladakh receivesrains in July, flash floods,unknown in the desert, become a

glaciers will receive more liquidprecipitation and less monsoonalsnowprecipitation. A shift in thesnowline will result in lesser inputto the glacier mass balance duringsummer periods. Therefore,higher atmospheric temperaturesand more liquid precipitation athigher altitude in the Himalayaswill lead to rapid retreat ofglaciers.

The impact of global warming isalready being felt in the Himalayasas the example of the 30.2 km longGangotri glacier shows. The rateof retreat in the last three decadeshas been found to be more thanthree times the rate during theearlier 200 years. The average rateof recession has been computedby comparing the snout positionon 1985 toposheet map and the2001 panchromatic satellite

imagery and the result shows thatthe average recession for thisperiod is about 23 m/yr. Thepictorial plot based on historicalevidences and recent data on theGangotri glacier retreat in aresearch by Jeff Kargel, Geologistof USGS also supports theincreased rate of retreat of theGangotri. The enhanced rate ofretreat is attributed to the

increased anthropogeniccontribution to the climate onaccount of greenhouse gasemissions contributing to globalwarming. Climate change is nota one dimensional linearphenomenon. It is complex, withmany factors interacting to createan unstable climate. Changes in

*Dr. Vandana Shiva

new climate related disaster. Inregions like Uttarakhand, thesource of the mighty Ganga andYamuna, while the monsoonsprovide rain in the peak season, itis the snow melt and the waterconserved in forested catchmentsas perennial springs and streams,which provides water in the leanseason. It is in the lean seasonwater is most needed. And it is thelean season flows which the

decreasing snow in the Himalayawill further reduce.

Climate change and climateinstability affects the Himalayansnows both through lower snowprecipitation which reduces theaccumulation and through highertemperatures which melt thesnow and ice and further depletethe glacier. According toclimatologists alpine glaciers, such

as those in the Himalaya, areparticularly sensitive indicators ofclimate change. The particularvulnerability of Himalayanglaciers to climate change is dueto the fact that they are summeraccumulation types dependenton summer monsoonalprecipitation and cool summertemperatures and consequently,the summer mass balance of these

glaciers nearly equals the annualmass balance.

As global warming continues toincrease the atmospherictemperature, it will lead to acontinuous shift of zerotemperature line (snow line)toward higher altitude. Thus


9/31


patterns of snowfall and rainfalland changes in temperature arechanging the very conditions,which have maintained the fragileand young Himalaya as a stableand sustainable ecosystem onwhich 40% of humanity depends,largely through gift of water.

Even though communities in theHimalaya are experiencingclimate instability and with itecosystem instability, a falsedebate about Himalayan glaciershas been created leading tocomplacency and inaction. Somescientists, without data and

without monitoring, created apanic saying by 2030, Himalayanglaciers would disappear becauseof climate change.

In response, glaciologists whohave been studying glaciersdiligently for decades swung tothe other extreme and said thatthere was nothing to worry aboutand glaciers are not receding.Therefore there is no climate

change and global warming.People as barefoot scientists areobserving decrease in snow falland shrinkage of glaciers. Thereis serious cause for worry.

The scientists who are sayingglaciers are not melting andretreating are focusing on threeindicators

1. That the rate of retreat ofeach glacier has variedover time

2. That the rate of retreatvaries across glaciers

3. That the snout of someglaciers has not retreatedas significantly as thetributaries

they are fragmenting. And wecannot be complacent, tellingourselves everything is fine, andthe Himalaya are insulated fromclimate change.

Dr. Ganjoo is in part respondingto the hype and partly looking atglaciers on geological time scale,not the human time scale. Headmits that the tributaries ofSiachin glacier have retreated. Healso admits that the main glacierhas retreated by 8 10 mt. since1995. He admits that glacier hasthinned. The west part of theglaciers has retreated faster due to

action of melt water released fromthe retreated tributary glacier.

Panic and hype about globalwarming and climate change is notan appropriate scientific response.Nor is denial of its impact. Climatechange demands a responsebeyond reductionist science. Itneeds a systemic and holisticscientific approach. It needsknowledge of changing

precipitation and temperatures. Itneeds knowledge of the interactionbetween snow and glaciers andmelt water that feeds rivers. Aboveall, climate change needs bridgingthe divide between fragmenteddisciplines, and bridging the dividebetween peoples science andscientists science.

We can neither afford hype nor

denial, neither panic norcomplacency on the climate front.We need a new realism. And thatrealism will come from Himalayanecosystems and Himalayancommunities who bear the brunt ofclimate instability.

*Founder Director, Navdanya

This variation is treated as proofof no climate impact. Sinceclimate change is not a linear anduniform phenomena, there is noreason to expect uniform melting.Since most glaciologists areoriginally geologists, they think onthe geological time scale and noton the human time scale, either ofhuman impact on the climate, orthe impact of climate change onhuman communities. It is true thatthe earth has had glacial ages anddeglaciation in the past,independent of humans. Buttodays climate instability ishuman induced and it will

determine whether the humanspecies survives or goes extinct.Most glaciers of the Himalaya areretreating. Some in the KaraKorams are not. And a retreat ofone metre as in the case of Siachinand 23 metres as in the case ofGaumukh is still a retreat.

Dr. Ganjoos paper in CurrentScience, Vol. 97, no. 3, 10th August2009 has stirred a major

controversy. Dr. Ganjoo is one ofour top glaciologists. For him aglacier is a living system. He knowsmore than anyone else thatexpecting uniformity in theresponse of glaciers to climatechange goes against glaciers asliving systems. Further, since aglacier is a living system, its healthdepends on all its parts beinghealthy as in a body its

metabolism, its digestion, its bloodcirculation. We do not look only atthe trunk of a body to determinehealth. If hands and feet areaffected by gangrene, if themetabolism is not functioning, abody is not healthy. The glaciers ofthe Himalaya are loosing theirsnows, they are thinning, and


10/31


Climate chaos: What prospects from Copenhagen?

O

ver the next two weeks,the worlds attention will

be focussed onCopenhagen where delegatesfrom 192 countries are meeting todiscuss a climate deal. Thismeeting comes at a time whenthere is a misconception that isrunning riot saying the KyotoProtocol (KP) is expiring in 2012hence the need to negotiate a newagreement. Nothing could befurther from the truth. Whateverspin is put on the KP, the fact ofthe matter is that rather than endthe Protocol, climate talks shouldbe about implementing it.

The KP does not expire in 2012. Itis not milk that carries a BESTBEFORE label. 10 years ago, 37more or less industrializedcountries and economies intransition called Annex 1 Partiesagreed to cut their greenhouse gas

emissions by an average of 5percent below 1990 levels over aperiod of four years starting in2008. It is this commitment ofAnnex I Parties under the Kyotothat is expiring in 2012. The restof the provisions of the Protocolremain intact.

Parties to the Protocol have beenin heated discussions onsubsequent commitments and thisis where developed countries haveshied away from makingadequate reduction commitments.The climate talks reached feverpitch in Barcelona recently whenthe African Group threatened towalk out because of the failure bydeveloped countries to make a

commitment on figures foremission cuts.

The Kyoto Protocol is a legalbinding document and a majorproblem of it is that the UnitedStates abandoned it in 2001. TheUS is not interested in aninternationally legally bindingdocument hence chances that itwill sign to the secondcommitment period of the KyotoProtocol are between slim andzero. Slim has gone out of townwhile zero is very much around.At the Bali climate meeting in2007, it was thought that if the USdid not return to the Protocol,then it would be treatedseparately and dealt with underthe United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Changewhere it is a member.

Other industrialized countries are

giving signals that they want to join the US bandwagon and aretherefore not interested in doinga second period of Kyoto. This hasangered the G77 members andChina. This bloc of developingcountries has over 130 membersand has called for a respect of theKyoto Protocol. They have goneso far as to suggest thatCopenhagen will be a disastrousfailure if there is no outcome forthe commitments of developedcountries for the secondcommitment period of the KyotoProtocol.

Mithika Mwenda the coordinatorof the Pan African Climate JusticeAlliance (PACJA) argues that the

causes and consequences ofclimate change lie principally with

the developed countries: We callon developed countries toacknowledge that they have usedmore than a fair and sustainableshare of the Earths atmosphericspace. They must repay their debtthrough deep domestic emissionreductions and by transferring thetechnology and finance requiredto enable us to follow a lesspolluting pathway withoutcompromising our development.

It is not surprising that there hasbeen a lot of agitation in Africaabout climate change issues. TheUnited Nations has identified 49countries as being least developedcountries based on threecriteria: low income, higheconomic vulnerability andweak human assets. Thirtythree of these countries are in

Africa. In his welcome addressat the opening ceremony of theCopenhagen Climate Changetalks, the chairman of theIntergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC),Rajendra Pachauri pointed outthat :

In Africa, by 2020, between 75and 250 million people areprojected to be exposed towater stress due to climatechange, and in somecountries on that continent yieldsfrom rain-fed agriculture couldbe reduced by up to 50%.

Given that such serious issues areat stack, it is surprising that the

*Percy F. Makombe


11/31


much respected UNFCCC hasbeen circulating fact sheets to themedia and the public that borderon falsehoods. One of the factsheets states that: Theinternational community, indrawing up the broadparameters for a climate changedeal in Bali two years ago,acknowledged that industrialisedcountries must accept bindingemission reduction targets.According to PACJA this is notcorrect because the industrialisedcountries were alreadycommitted to accept bindingemission reduction targets

through a second commitmentunder the Kyoto Protocol.

Another fact sheet states that:However despite the fact thatkey developed country forumssuch as the G8 have recognizeda 2% C limit, pledges for mid-term targets by industrialisedcountries fall woefully short ofthe IPCC range (25% to 40%below 1990 levels by 2020). This

too boggles the mind, not leastbecause the IPCC does not makeany recommendations. In fact,many developing countries arecalling for emission reductions ofmore than 85% by 2050.

PACJA quite rightly contendsthat: The 25% to 40% is not anIPCC range. The IPCC leadauthor has confirmed that the

range is not a recommendationby IPCC. It is simply a summaryof a small number of studies onburden sharing betweendeveloped and developingcountries (most of which wereconducted by authors employedor funded by EU institutions),which reflect the assumptions of

A deal that works is veryimportant especially for Africaand international cooperation isneeded for this. This is where thekey issues of mitigation andadaptation come into play.

Mitigation is about reducingemissions of greenhouse gases toavoid the worst impact of climatechange. Adaptation is about howpeople adjust and cope withclimate change. As a result ofclimate change, millions ofpeople will face water and foodshortages as well as health risks.

Former UN Human Rights

Commissioner Mary Robinsonargues that while mitigationpolicies encouraging bio-fuelproduction may decreaseemissions and bring benefits tocertain farmers, they also reducethe land available for foodcultivation and increase conflictsover land. Land scarcitytranslates to decreased foodproduction, which leads to higherprices for staple foods putting

communities at risk.

Robinson goes on to say:Adaptation policies may alsohave unintended human rightsconsequences, particularly fortraditionally marginalised groups.As communities face increasingfood security brought on byclimate change, women will bearthe brunt of the burden as they

struggle to feed their familiesoften compromising their ownhealth and nutrition to do so.

Questions have been raised onthe role that the World Bank willplay in receiving and distributingclimate change funding. Withoutfinance, Africa will find it next

those authors and their models...

Climate change is a long struggleand it is not going to be resolvedat Copenhagen. What isdisappointing is that the

shenanigans of the World TradeOrganisation are spilling into theclimate talks. Divide and ruletactics are being used.Experienced Philippine negotiatorBernarditas de Castro Muller whowas the spokesperson of G77 andChina was dropped by thePhilippines government from itslist of delegates to theCopenhagen talks. No clear

reasons were given for this actionalthough speculation aboundsthat this was at the behest of theEU and US. Muller has been thePhilippines representative in theUNFCCC since 1994.

His exclusion has raised alarmwith civil society organisations.Chito Tionko of the Civil SocietyOrganizations (CSO) WorkingGroup on Climate Change and

Development has been quotedsaying: The negotiators ofindustrialized countries are reallyafraid of Ditas Muller becauseshe keeps reminding them of theirresponsibilities. They want herout of the picture so that theycan push their own agenda.There are many developingcountries that depend on Mullerto defend their interests. It is

these steamroller tactics that areso characteristic of the WTO talksthat have been perfected in theclimate talks. The Danes alsostand accused of organising smallunofficial selective meetings invery much the same way of themuch condemned WTO Greenrooms.


12/31


to impossible to deal with climatechange. It is therefore importantthat funds are channelled insidethe UNFCCC rather than theWorld Bank given the latterschequered history in dealing withthe socioeconomic developmentof Africa. If the World Bankcontrols the money, there is a realfear that most of it will go tomitigation and there will not beenough for adaptation which isreally what is urgent fordeveloping countries as they arealready struggling with how tocope with climate change.

There is also the issue oftechnology transfer. This isimportant because reducinggreenhouse gas emissions posestechnical challenges fordeveloping countries. This is why

there is talk of developing climatefriendly technology for mitigationand adaptation. However this willnot mean much if intellectualproperty rights (IPR) are leftintact. Technology transfer isnothing if IPRs are maintained.There is therefore a need to pushfor the relaxation of IPR rules fordeveloping countries to fight theclimate battle. Currently there isno structure in the UNFCCCdealing with technology transfer.They merely have an advisorygroup.

It is therefore necessary to set up

a body with policy-makingpowers to handle technologytransfer issues. This body shouldamong other things recommendwhat policy is needed on IPR.The overriding goal should be to

treat IPRs in a manner thatallows access to technology ataffordable prices.

In the gospel of Matthew,Pharisees and Sadducees arerebuked because they know howto read the face of the sky butcannot read the signs of the times.It is important that Copenhagenreads the signs of the times andresponds appropriately. The onlyproblem as aptly argued byProfessor Ernst Conradie is that:politicians will be inclined toaccept ecological suicide latermore readily than political

suicide now by proposing astringent environmental deal.

*Programmes Manager,Economic Justice Network (EJN)[email protected]

Immediate reaction from the Bharatiya Krishak Samaj on theG20 and G33 Communique

Geneva, 29th November : The Bharatiya Krishak Samaj (BKS) is in Geneva and is closely following

the activities leading to the 7th WTO Ministerial going to begin here from Monday. The BKS is very

disappointed with the Indian stand as expressed in the G20 and G33 Communique issued today after

their ministerial meetings. It is quite sad that India has accepted the December 2008 text as the negotiating

document despite the fact that the provision on the Special Products (SP) is quite inadequate and the

Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) is quite ineffective and cumbersome to provide any effective

protection to Indian farmers in case of import surges. Ironically India which has initially demanded for

20% of total tariff lines as SP is now happy with having just 5% tariff lines as SPs with zero tariff. India

would be able to declare just 35 tariff lines as SPs out of 680 tariff lines in agriculture. It is extremely

insufficient provision and cannot provide any protection to Indian farmers.

We appeal to the Indian delegation in Geneva and especially the Commerce Minister Anand Sharma

to demand for opening up of the December text. We also appeal to the Minister to lead the developing

countries in demanding for an effective reduction in subsidies and an effective SP and SSM provisions

which can provide succour to the poor farmers in the south.

Krishan Bir Chaudhary


13/31


SEATTLE, Dec 7 (IPS) - Ten yearsago, the Seattle Ministerial of the

World Trade Organisation (WTO)flashed over into a Battle ofSeattle before the eyes of a startledworld.

Throwing the prosperous home ofBoeing and Microsoft into turmoil,large demonstrations led bylabour and environmental groupswere complemented bywidespread civil disobedience inthe streets. This resonated with arevolt by delegates fromdeveloping countries against thestrong-arm tactics of the WTOleadership and the United States.The convergence precipitated therancorous collapse of the WTOsefforts to inaugurate aMillennium Round of tradetalks.

In the decade since, the trade

body has sometimes seemedafflicted by the institutionalequivalent of post-traumaticstress disorder. This may bebecause many of the forces thatsurfaced in Seattle are stil lprotagonists in the currentimpasse over the DohaRound of trade negotiations,launched in 2001 in the capitalof Qatar.

In each round of talks, whichcan last many years,representatives of membercountries meet periodically todiscuss how to bring new arenasof commerce under WTOregimens and increase the scopeof commitments to trade

liberalisation by membercountries.

And GATT Begat the WTO

The World Trade Organisation(WTO) is built on the foundationof the General Agreement onTariffs and Trade, established in1947. A member of the newgeneration of international bodieslaunched after World War II,GATT was a sibling of the UnitedNations, the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) and theWorld Bank. It grew up in an erawhen Keynesian economics anda strong government role ineconomic management werebroadly accepted.

But the new avatar ofinternational commerce, criticssay, reflects the ascendancy ofmarket fundamentalism over

values such as sustainabledevelopment, environmentalprotections, public health andsafety, labour rights,transparency and accountability.The WTO, in this view, has growninto an undemocratic and opaqueforce that advances the interestsof wealthy countries andtransnational businesses,coercively enforcing unfetteredtrade as an end in itself rather

than a means to human well-being.

WTO Secretary-General PascalLamy, for his part, defends hisorganisation as a criticalcomponent of the globalgovernance system. You have

subscribed to the principles ofadvancing and defending open

trade within a non-discriminatoryand transparent framework,Lamy told the Geneva Ministerial.You are united in the belief thattrade can contribute tosustainable development in thewidest sense. That it can generategrowth. That it can help providedecent jobs. That trade can be apowerful tool for developingcountries to fight poverty.

Free trade under GATT wasdefined primarily by two basicprinciples of non-discrimination:national treatment and most-favoured nation. Nationaltreatment means that importsfrom other countries must betreated no differently thandomestic products.

Most-favoured nation status

requires that all trading partnersbe treated equally. Together, thetwo principles encouraged tradethat treated goods from all foreigncountries and domestic goodsequally.

In practice, however, manyrestrictions on trade were allowedor persisted under GATT, andmost countries maintained tariffsand subsidies on numerous goods.

One reason was that underGATT, trade disputes betweennations proceeded slowly andincrementally. The parties had tosort them out through patientnegotiation and consensus, asboth sides had effective vetopower over the outcome.

TRADE: A Lost Decade for the WTO?*Peter Costantini


14/31


Despite some Cold Wardisruptions, global economicintegration proceeded steadily formost of the period from WorldWar II through the opening of theformer Soviet Bloc, China, and

many other countries tointernational markets.

Bargaining on new rules for tradeand changes in existing ones hasfor many decades been conductedin rounds that continue formany years and span numerousconferences in sites around theworld.

Each successive round of tradenegotiations under GATT and theWTO has pushed to liberalisemore areas of the world economyand expand the reach of traderules. The implicit assumptionbehind these rounds has been thatpeeling away more layers ofnational regulations that mayimpose even indirect limits oncommerce, while increasing theleverage of enforcement, bring

benefits to all countries.

Doha was branded as theDevelopment Round,dedicated to the economicadvancement of poor countriesthrough trade. But the supposedbeneficiaries mistrust of U.S. andEuropean dominance of theorganisation has led to the growthof a counterbalance led by China,

India, Brazil, Indonesia and SouthAfrica.

After failures to agree on the Dohaagenda at ministerial-levelmeetings in Cancn in 2003 andHong Kong in 2005, negotiationson the substance of WTOexpansion were relegated to

lower-level meetings.

In July 2008, the talks founderedon the rocks of agricultural tradeand tariffs. When the U.S. rejecteddemands by India and other

developing countries for a specialsafeguard mechanism allowingthem to protect domestic farmersagainst surges in imports, Indiaand its allies threatened toabandon ship.

Nevertheless, efforts by the WTOto salvage Doha continue. In aspeech in Geneva, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy affirmed

that the economic crisis hasdemonstrated that trade is thestimulus package available todeveloping countries and that ithas to be part and parcel of theeconomic recovery effort forgrowth to be sustainable.

Since Seattle, however, citizensand governments of manymember countries have grownmore sceptical about the benefits

of some existing WTO rules andmore hesitant to expand them.

In many developing countries,small farmers and ruralcommunities have becomeincreasingly concerned thatpoverty could be worsened anddevelopment undermined byWTO expansion. Theirorganisations are pushing to erect

buffers against destructive spasmsin commodity markets anddamage caused by rich countriesagricultural subsidies.

Governments of some wealthycountries, however, havecriticised such protections asviolations of trade rules.

According to Martin Khor of thenon-governmental South Centre,the founding objectives of theWTO included raising standardsof living and ensuring fullemployment in the service of

sustainable development;reduction of trade barriers andeliminating discriminatorytreatment between nations weremeans to those ends.

However, Khor argues in a recentpaper, that the trade-promotionmeasures have in effect becomeends in themselves rather than themeans. Trade liberalisation has

elbowed aside development andthe broad sharing of economicbenefits.

Many labour, environmental andpublic health organisationsworldwide have continued tooppose expansion of the WTOsscope as well. They are fightingwhat they see as the use of traderules to force nations to deregulateexpanding sectors of the economy

and strip away hard-won publicsafeguards.

Recently, in the wake of the globalfinancial crisis, continuing effortsto expand the WTOs remit in thederegulation of internationalfinancial services have also beenwidely called into question.

At the 7th Ministerial of the WTO,

which met from Nov. 30 throughDec. 2 in Geneva, organiserslimited the proceedings to ahousekeeping meeting whereno major decision-making effortswould be made.

The proponents of the WTOhave been afraid for four years to


15/31


call a negotiating ministerial,asserted Lori Wallach of GlobalTrade Watch, a U.S. non-governmental organisation. TheU.S., the European Union, andsome big multinational

corporations fear an explosion,she told IPS, because they havecontinued in the face ofopposition from the majority ofWTO members to push the sameradical WTO expansion agendathat was originally brought upand rejected at Seattle.

Wallach compared bringing tradeministers together without

confronting the underlying issuesto not talking about war whileworking on the Versailles Treaty[which ended World War I]. Somedeveloping countries, she says, arecalling Geneva the MuzzleMinisterial.

In contrast, U.S. TradeRepresentative Ron Kirk, speakingin Geneva, congratulated theWTO for passing a fairly

strenuous test presented by thefinancial crisis. The continuedhealth of the trading system, heobserved, is due in part to manyof our own individual efforts inthe face of domestic pressure toturn inward.

Kirk highlighted the WTOs Aidfor Trade program, whichprovides targeted aid to assist

developing countries to increasetheir capacities, and noted thatthe U.S. is the largest provider oftrade-related technical assistance.Citing a recent WTO report thatfound that the least-developedcountries were exportingincreasingly to newly importanteconomies such as China and

India, he called on these newtrade powers to make increasedmarket-opening contributionscommensurate with their role inthe global economy.

As Doha languishes, thefoundations of the world economyand much of the worldsunderstanding of them haveindeed shifted and settled. Twoenormous speculative bubbles andthe most destructive downturnsince the Great Depression haveled many across the politicalspectrum to question the gospel oflaissez-faire and deregulation.

Challenges to the orthodox tradedoctrine undergirding the WTOhave emerged as well. Newhistorical critiques such asKicking Away the Ladder, byHa-Joon Chang of Cambridge,argue that in their early years allthe now- wealthy countriesadopted tariffs and other tradebarriers to protect their youngindustries, but now deny the use

of the same shelters to todaysdeveloping countries.

Most modern versions ofeconomic theory recognise thattrade produces losers as well aswinners: whether it is effective inreducing poverty, though, hasbeen a subject of sharp debate. Arecent WTO review found that,while increased trade is positively

correlated with economic growth,there is not a clear causal linkbetween trade and povertyreduction.

Trade may even exacerbateinequality, the study found,because it tends to benefitwealthier sectors in both

developing and industrialisedcountries.

One force in the trade debate thathad its coming-out party at theSeattle Ministerial - the global

justice movement - has becomea regular at internationaleconomic events over theintervening years.

In Geneva, Our World Is Not ForSale, a network of 216organisations, called for a halt tonegotiations on the Doha Round,the reversal of WTOcommitments, and the adoption

of different approaches to themultiple global crises.

Among analyses of the legacy ofSeattle, a surprising one camefrom an erstwhile antagonist ofthat movement, the then-mayor ofSeattle who lost the next electionpartly as a result of his handlingof the protests. The firstintroduction to the issues of the21st Century happened in

Seattle, Paul Schell told a Seattletelevision station. We need tobecome much more sensitive toour impact on the world and theworlds impact on us.

Nobody wants to talk about it, butwe cant maintain our standardof living at the expense of thestandard of living of the rest of theworld. We really need to rethink

how much we are consuming theworlds resources, and we aregoing to have to find our valuesin something other than morestuff.

*IPS correspondent


16/31


Mahamandaleshwar Laxman Das Ji Maharaj and Rajesh Porwal, President, Akhil Bharatiya Swadeshi Sangh

honouring Chief Guest, Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary in a Swadeshi Sangh Conference in Bhopal, (M.P.)

Inaugural view of the 5th International Flora Expo, Bangalore, (Karnataka). From (L-R) Shri M.V. Naqvi,

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary, Shri Syed Kirmani, Dr. Vasanth Kumar and others.


17/31


T

he governments GeneticEngineering Approval

Committee has cleared thecommercial cultivation ofgenetically modified (GM) brinjal(eggplant, aubergine or baingan,known variously as vanga, vangiand begun).

Brinjal, which originated in In-dia, is popular worldwide. InIndia, it accounts for half a mil-lion hectares of land and an out-put of 8.4 million tonnes. This isthe first time a GM food crop hasbeen approved by the GEAC, anad hoc 30-member committeecomprised mainly of bureaucratsand scientists from state institu-tions, which substitutes itself fora proper regulatory agency.

This momentous decision poten-tially opens the door to other GMfood crops, including rice, maize,

soyabean and sorghum (jowar, orthe Great Millet) besides directlyintroducing a genetically engi-neered vegetable into Indias foodchain. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh who publiclyopposed GM foods only monthsago says hell will study theGEACs report in depth beforetaking a final decision. MrRamesh would do well to lookinto the charge by the biologist,

Professor P M Bhargava theGEACs only independent expert,appointed by the Supreme Court that a majority of the neces-sary biosafety tests were skippedbefore the clearance was given.Thats itself a strong reason forrefusing to approve Bt brinjal.

The transgenic brinjal was devel-oped by Mahyco (Maharashtra

[Hybrid Seeds Company) in col-laboration with the US-basedtransnational, Monsanto. It in-volves the insertion of a genefrom the soil bacterium Bacillusthuringiensis into the DNA or ge-netic code of the vegetable to

produce pesticidal toxins in ev-ery cell.

Theoretically, Bt brinjal cultiva-tion should lead to reduced pes-ticide use and vegetable wastage,officially claimed at 50 percent-plus, lost to pests such as fruitand shoot borers. But as we see,theory is one thing and GMsreality another. Indeed, the

theory is itself open to scientificdoubt.

Rational opposition to Bt brinjaldoesnt arise from a knee-jerkrejection of genetic engineering,but is based on good science.Sound, established science tells us

that we dont know enoughabout the effects of insertion of

alien genes on the recipient or-ganism, about the risk of trans-fer of those genes to human or-gan systems or viruses andhence about the impact on hu-man and animal health and theenvironment.

Therefore, we must not allow GMfoods to be cultivated commer-cially. As Harvard geneticist Ri-chard Lewontin puts it: We havesuch a miserably poor under-standing of how the organismdevelops from the DNA that Iwould be surprised if we dontget one rude shock after another.Prudence demands that we atleast dont create conditions forrude shocks. A host of studiesshow that GM crops have ad-verse effects on animals and hu-mans. Consider some. In 1996,

the UK launched more than 50long-term safety studies on GMfoods. A team under ArpadPusztai of the prestigious RowettInstitute tested GM potatoes en-gineered to produce an insecti-cide called GNA lectin by feed-ing them to rats. The feed ad-versely affected virtually everyorgan of young rats, including thebrain, liver and testicles. Therewere signs of immune system

damage.

Rats fed non-GM potatoes spikedwith the lectin were relativelyunaffected even when fed 700times the amount of the lectin theGM potato produced. The teamconcluded that the damage was

Opening the door to Bt brinjal, a step towards disaster*Praful Bidwai


18/31


caused by the genetic modifica-tion process itself.

Similarly, in another study, ratsfed with GM tomatoes developedbleeding stomachs. Of the 20rats, 7 developed stomach le-sions; another 7 of 40 died withintwo weeks... Again, rats fed withMonsantos GM maize exhibitedsignificant changes in their bloodcells, livers and kidneys.Monsanto challenged the findingswith its own company study.But according to expert Gilles-EricSeralini, Monsanto contradictsitself. The first time around, their

studies explain that there aresignificant effects without apathological significance, andthe second time around, (they)say that the effects observed areno longer significant.

Worse, theres strong evidencethat GM crops affect human be-ings and animals. In MadhyaPradesh, agricultural labourershandling Bt cotton complained of

allergic reactions like mild to se-vere itching. In severe cases, theeyes also become red, swollen,with excessive tears, nasal dis-charge, and sneezing.

All 23 subjects experienced itch-ing. Twenty had lesions on theirface and hands. Some also ap-peared on the feet, back, neck, andabdomen. Nineteen showed red-

ness of skin and 13 facial swell-ing. Eleven had eye symptoms.Nine had nasal discharge and/orexcessive sneezing. Allergies, andmore, have been reported fromother Bt cotton-growing states too.In Andhra Pradesh, studies by therespected NGO, Deccan Develop-ment Society, found that Bt cot-

ton cultivators continued to usepesticides on a large scale, whichbelies the claim that Bt cottonwould reduce pesticide use. Thecrops produced hitherto unseendiseases in soils. In 2003, nearly2,500 sheep died after grazing inBt cotton fields. DDS institutedanother sheep study. Two groupswere fed two varieties of Bt cot-ton and the third non-Bt cotton.Sheep from the first two diedwithin six weeks. The non-Btcotton-fed sheep remainedhealthy.

Adverse effects have been re-

ported from the Philippines, theUS and Germany from GM maize,cotton and soyabeans, includingallergies in humans and perma-nent damage in pigs, cows andchickens. In the US, a GM foodsupplement called L-Tryptophankilled about 100 people and pro-duced swelling, coughs, rashes,pneumonia, mouth ulcers, nausea,muscle spasms, difficulty in con-centration and paralysis among

1,000 people.

This is only one set of problemswith GM. There are others too.Studies suggest that gene insertionmay disrupt the seed DNA, theprotein inserted by the Bt genemay cause problems, and the for-eign protein may be different thanthat intended. Besides, genes mayget transferred to human systems.

GM crops are likely to increase en-vironmental and food-chain tox-ins. These are unaffordable risks.Given this evidence, GM foodscertainly cannot be certified assafe. Yet, they are being pro-moted for profit by corporationswhich control intellectual prop-erty rights to GM seeds and can

manipulate their sales.

Five giant corporations Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta,Bayer and Dow comprise thebulk of the global GM seedsmarket. Monsanto alone ac-counts for 84 percent. Together,these companies own 35 percentof the worldwide seed marketand 59 percent of the pesticidemarket.

The global commercial GM foodsmarket comprises four crops soyabeans, corn, canola and cot-ton. But now GM companies are

getting into fruits and vegetableslike papaya, zucchini and spinach.GM potatoes and tomatoes wereintroduced but taken off the mar-ket. The companies work on onlytwo traits: pesticides tolerance, orability to withstand excessive pes-ticide use which they them-selves make and sell and built-in pesticidal properties.

About 68 percent of the crops are

engineered to resist a herbicide,about 19 percent produce theirown pesticide, and 13 percent doboth. GM food crops are not thetechnology of the future. There areonly 6 countries in which GM cropproduction is significant: The US(54 percent of world total), Argen-tina, Brazil, Canada, India andChina. Most European countriesdont allow GM food to be pro-

duced or sold. The USs depen-dence on GM is explained by thehuge power that agrochemical cor-porations wield there. Argentinaand Brazil raise GM crops mainlyto feed animals for the globalmeat market.

Indias experience with Bt cotton


19/31


should be an eye-opener. Bt cot-ton was allowed to be grownwithout proper safety evaluation.This led to the wild use of GMseeds of all kinds authentic(sourced from Mahyco-Monsanto),derived (through improper ge-netic manipulation by small un-registered companies), and dupli-cate or downright fake seeds madeby fly-by-night companies. Farm-ers first took to Bt cotton becauseof higher yields and reduced ex-penditure on pesticides. But thesegains soon turned illusory. As theirlosses mounted, farmers withdrewfrom Bt cultivation. In response,

the companies formed a cartel in2006, and stopped selling non-Btseeds, forcing farmers to buy Bt.This condemnably unethical prac-

tice should be immediatelypenalised. But the government hasdone nothing about it.

Losses from Bt cotton are one ofthe main causes for the 150,000farmerss suicides in India since1997 a number unprecedentedin world history. The terrible hu-man consequences of this abuse ofscience should jolt policymakersinto asking why Indian farmers,who face falling returns to capitaland acute water scarcity, shouldbe encouraged to grow cottonwhich demands a huge 11,000litres of water per kilo of the fibre.

This is a suicidal bargain.

The future of Indian agricultureand food security doesnt lie in GM

foods. They are unsafe, deliver noreal benefits, and are bad for theenvironment and human health.Our real future lies in low-inten-sity, low-energy, low water-use ag-riculture based on and drought-resistant crops like millets (jowar,bajra, maize, ragi) and pulses, andsturdy indigenous seed varieties.Thats where our research priori-ties must be directed. Ultimately,do we want sustainable agricul-ture thats relevant to our climate,resources and food security? Or dowe want corporate farming basedon high-risk GM seeds and highchemical inputs? Opening the door

to Bt brinjal is a step towards di-saster.

*http://businees.redif f.com

The 7th Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was held in Geneva in the midst of multiple crises, whenpeople all over the world are demanding that governments take decisive action to protect their livelihoods from the dangersof corporate led globalisation. The failure of deregulation and liberalisation that the WTO locks in through its trade regime areall too evident to the ordinary people in the world. That this Ministerial was a non-negotiating meeting, is a reflection of themassive resistance to the WTO trade regime from workers, farmers, fishers and social movements from across the world. Trade

ministers did not come to Geneva empowered with a popular mandate to move forward the negotiations. But in an inexplicablebut expected disconnect to the realities back home, many of them have called for a speedy conclusion to the Doha Round in2010.

Fifteen years after its inception, the WTO is further away than ever from an equitable, just, rulesbased multilateral tradingsystem that can foster development. Since its launch eight years ago, it has become progressively more evident that the DohaDevelopment Round is completely antagonistic to the real priorities of peoples in developing countries. Instead, the demandsof the global powers continue to set the agenda for trade negotiations and are doing so in a climate of fear where the blamegame has become the order of the day. Any country that is not prepared to support the speedy conclusion of the Doha Roundis in danger of being blamed for the failure of the multilateral trading system. The WTO is not a solution to the multiple crisesthat the world is facing. On the contrary, evidence shows that WTO trade rules are more a cause of and will exacerbate thecurrent food, financial and climate crises. If the the main purpose of this ministerial meeting was to examine the role of theWTO in the current global economic environment, then governments must:

_ immediately halt all negotiations on the Doha Round;_ reverse WTO commitments and reject progressive liberalisation;_ conduct comprehensive development audits of the impacts of WTO trade on local and

national economies;_ in collaboration with national constituencies, develop new trade rules that will ensure food sovereignty, financial, economic

and environmental security and climate justice;

Governments: Listen to Your People, Abandon DohaConfront the Crises!

*Source : www.owinfs.org


20/31


W

orld is anxiouslywaiting for theoutcome of two crucial

events scheduled at the close ofthe year 2009. One such event isthe three-day Seventh WTOMinisterial Meeting beginning inGeneva from November 30 and theother is the four-day UNFCCCs15th Conference of Parties (CoP-15)on climate change beginning fromDecember 7 in Copenhagen.

The results of these two crucialevents are likely to be on theexpected lines. At this particulartime of global financial crisis andaccompanying recession thedeveloped nations are unwilling tomake any substantial commitmentsthat would ensure free and fairpractices in the multilateral tradingsystem and give a level-playing fieldto the developing and leastdeveloped countries. The

developed nations, with a view tosave themselves from the impact ofthe global crisis, have become moreprotectionist in trade.

The US Administration underPresident Obama has recentlyinitiated several measures thatdirectly and indirectly restrict freeand fair trade. Apart from fosteringprotectionism in trade, thedeveloped countries are aggressive

for opening up of markets indeveloping countries.

Similarly is the case for cuttingdown greenhouse gas (GHG)emission levels by the developedcountries. Climate politics is takinga new turn. The developedcountries are unwilling to reduce

their energy consumption andeffect a change in their life style asthey believe that this existing orderwould help to keep their economiesintact no matter what happensto the rest of the world. Acommitment for a drastic cut intheir emission level can, however,save the warming world from acatastrophe!

The climate politics of the developedcountries, particularly that of US is

to focus more on carbon trading,trade in green goods and servicesand less on emission cuts. Thoughunder the principle of common butdifferentiated responsibilities andrespective capabilities, thedeveloping nations are not requiredto make commitments for emissioncuts, the pressure is mounting onthem to do so with a mechanismfor global monitoring ofcompliances. Plot is being hatched

to rope in developing countries bysuggesting black carbon emission asone of the cause for globalwarming, while there is noconclusive scientific evidence for it.

The recent UNFA report hasshamelessly mentioned blackcarbon emission in developingcountries as a cause for globalwarming. However. Somedeveloping countries have, on their

own, taken some initiatives tocontain their GHG emission. If thedeveloped countries are interestedin roping in developing nations incommitments for emission cuts, itwould be better to suggest a globalnorm for per capita energyconsumption and fix the emissioncut on per capita basis. This

judicious formula may not beagreeable by the developed nationsas their per capita energyconsumption and emission aremuch higher than in the developingworld.

The developing countries have theright to the development processfor lifting millions of people out ofpoverty. They are in search ofappropriate technology transferand adequate finance from the

developed world so that they cancarry on their development processas usual without much burdeningthe global atmosphere with GHGemissions.

A trap is being carefully laid inCopenhagen to allure thedeveloping countries with sops liketechnology and finance transferand modifications in carbontrading mechanism so that the

developed countries can bypasstheir commitments for effectingtheir emission cuts.

Technology transfer is likely tocarry a tag of stringent intellectualproperty rights, the price of whichthe developing countries wouldhave to pay. It would better in theinterests of the world as a wholethat intellectual property regime donot come in the way of green

technology transfer and greengoods and services becomeaffordable. Or else the Copenhagenconference is likely to only boostthe prospects of the developedworld in trade of green goods andservices.

The warming world now needs

Will Geneva, Copenhagen meets render trade and climate justice*Ashok B. Sharma


21/31


some soothing effect which cancome primarily from thecommitments from the developedcountries to drastically cut theiremission levels. If this does nothappen then the Copenhagen

conference would mean nothing interms of climate justice. On thewhole the developing countrieswould continue to suffer withincreased climate extremities,droughts, floods, cyclones, stormsurges, threat of submergence andother natural calamities.

The world leaders need to emphasisand render incentives for not onlyfor preservation and conservationof natural forests but also forincreasing the area under denseforests. It is a tragedy that climatesensitive sectors like forestry,mining and fishery are wrongfullyplaced under Non-AgricultureMarket Access (NAMA) ieindustrial goods in the WTO. Thisencourages more deforestation tomeet the greed of timber trade andmore depletion of natural mineral

and marine resources. Forestry,mining and fishery need to placedunder Agriculture negotiations inthe WTO.

Negotiations in the Seventh WTOMinisterial in Geneva and theCopenhagen climate conference areclosely inter-linked. It is notsurprising that the trade in greengoods and services may figure inthe Geneva talks ahead of the

Copenhagen meet. In todaysunipolar world, the US holds thekey to the success or failure of anyinternational negotiations. Badlystung by the global financial crisisand in a frantic bid to save its ailingeconomy, it is in search of allies inthe emerging economies. The UShas, however found two such allies

India and China. The USPresident Obama has recentlyoffered strategic bilateralpartnerships with India and China two emerging economies thathave the capability to influence

other developing countries.

Brazil, which is an emergingeconomy and aggressive in tradeinterests, may not be vocal inprotecting the defensive interests ofthe farmers in developing world.The US-India Joint Statementsigned on November 24, 2009 hassaid : Prime Minister Singh andPresident Obama recognised thatthe India-US relationship isimportant for managing thechallenges the world will face in the21st century.

Recently, The Australian PrimeMinister, Kevin Michael Rudd andthe Indian Prime Minister,Manmohan Singh struck a StrategicPartnership for comprehensivecooperation in almost all sectorsincluding defence. Australia has an

ambition to emerge as a leader inthe Asia-Pacific region and intendsto sign free trade agreements(FTAs) with India, China, Japanand South Korea. Australia isaware that India is forging closerlinks with US and is leaving a largerfootprint across the Indian Ocean.

Rudd has described Asia-Pacificregion where the big powerrelationships most closely intersect

the crucible where therelationships among the US, India,China, Japan and Russia are forgedand the template for the emergenceof US-China relationship andwhere the complementary andcompetitive interests of the majorpowers would need to bemanaged, harmonized and

reconciled.

The advocates for trade and climate justice on behalf of the developingworld should study the fine fabricsof the changing geo-politics and

how the developed countries areganging up and forging allianceswith the emerging economies tosave themselves from the adverseimpact of the global financial crisis.

Majority of G-20 finance ministersare in favour of strengthening thesagging US dollar so that itcontinues to act as the globalcurrency reserve. Less than threeweeks after India stunned globalmarkets with its decision to buy 200tonne of gold from the IMF for $6.7billion as a hedge against theweakening US dollar, the IndianPrime Minister Manmohan Singhin an interview to Newsweek of USsaid : I have heard many timesbefore. When I was in the US in thelate 1960s there was Prof. RobertTriffin at Yale who wrote a famousbook Gold & the Dollar Crisis

saying the dollars role as a reservecurrency has come to an end andthe US must recognise this. Thatwas said in 1968. Then of coursecame 1971 when the US went offthe Gold Exchange Tender. But theUS bounced back. I hope the samething will happen once again.

On the issue of negotiations forclimate justice, the Indian PrimeMinister in his recent address to the

Washington-based Council onForeign Relations, however, said :The negotiations heading towardsCopenhagen are proving moredifficult than we have liked. Thereis disagreement amongindustrialised countries andbetween industrialised anddeveloping countries. In an


22/31


interview to the US press hecategorically said : I know thereare difficulties. But without the USgiving a lead I do not see a deal atCopenhagen can become a reality.

With a view to strengthen India-USStrategic Dialogue launched in July20 2009, India and US signedMoUs? for cooperation on energysecurity, energy efficiency, cleanenergy and climate change,agricultural cooperation and foodsecurity, counter-terrorism. MoUon energy cooperation and theIndia-US civilian nuclear pactsigned earlier would give access toAmerican companies and Indiawould gain in terms of foreigndirect investment (FDI) flows, butthe quantum of benefits to theIndian power sector needs to be

assessed in this context.The US-India Knowledge Initiativein Agriculture and the recentlysigned MoU on agriculturecooperation are likely to givegreater control of US seed

multinationals over Indianagriculture and pave the way forimposing genetically modified (GM)crops on Indian farmers. Bt brinjaldeveloped by Monsantos Indianpartner, Mahyco is on the verge ofcommercialisation and is beingresisted by many farmersorganisations and civil societygroups.

The deals at Geneva andCopenhagen are likely to be on theexpected lines. The negotiations atboth these venues are likely to belargely influenced by the changing

geo-politics with the developedcountries in the lead and thesupporting emerging economies inthe backdrop of the global financialcrisis.

The advocates for trade and climatejustice on behalf of the developingworld should better lobby with theleast developing countries (LDCs),small and vulnerable economies(SVEs), CARICOM, AfricanGroup, Cotton-4 and ACPcountries so that real justice can beachieved. Many of these countriesare already being allured bydeveloped countries and emergingeconomies for bilateral trade andcooperation.

*www.financialexpress.com/547395/0

Is the Indian floriculture ready for a big leap forward? No one doubts its inherent strengths and great potential,but still, many are skeptical about its present pace of growth to take a quantum jump in the near future. Themain constraints include non-availability of proper marketing facilities even in the main consumer anddistribution hubs in all major cities, lack of a sustainable long term plan for floriculture industry as a thrustarea and prolonged inaction on the part of leadership to evolve a suitable policy.

5th International Flora Expo-2009 was inaugurated by renowned cricketer, Flower and Plants lover Mr. SyedKirmani with Farmers leader Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary and Dr. Vasanth Kumar Addl. Secretary, Govt. ofKarnataka. Event hosted a series of activities like New Products Launching, National Floral Art Competition,Training Programs for farmers and officials and Flora Expo Annual Award Function.

To give a further fillip to this sector, which has vast potential to augment employment and income in the ruralareas, we need to garner the efforts of all stakeholders, particularly the concerned ministries in the governmentand their agencies like APEDA, National Horticulture Board, National Horticulture Mission, Technology Missionfor the North East and the like, along with growers organizations, input suppliers, the industry and others, ina coordinated manner. Over 18 states participated in the expo and send farmer and official delegations todisplay the Flowers and Plants wealth and to see the technologies from different countries.The displays of

Kerala, Sikkim, Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura, Himachal, Uttarakhand, Tamilnadu, Jharkhand and Karnatakawas major attraction and appreciated by all trade visitor.Kerala pavilion got Best display Award in allparticipants.

The emergence of new floriculture hubs in the country in areas like south Gujarat, north Maharashtra, hillareas of Tamil Nadu, north Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, providesproof of the popularity of growing flowers to meet the growing needs of the domestic market and exports.Tribal areas in the North East are shining examples of womens empowerment thanks to successful floricultureventures there.

5th International Flora Expo, Bangalore Floriculture Blooms amidst problems


23/31


Brazil suspends Syngenta agrochemicals

T

he Brazilian toxicologyauthorities have halted the

production and sale ofalmost 1,000 tonnes of someSyngenta agrochemicals. Thenational health surveillanceagency, the Anvisa, took theaction early this month. It saysthe pesticides were adulteratedwith irregularities in theirimport, production and sales.

The affected active ingredients

and products include the plantgrowth regulator, flumetralin,the fungicide, Score(difenoconazole), thef u n g i c i d e / i n s e c t i c i d e ,Verdadero 600 (thiamethoxam+ cyproconazole), and theacaricide, Acarmate(cyhexatin).

Some 600 kg had tainted

manufacturing and expirydate information. Thoseproducts can neither be usednor sold until the correctionshave been made, the Anvisasays. The agency further citedSyngenta for destroying batchidentification labels, and theproduction and expiry dateinformation for flumetralin.Several batches of that product

were seized as they lackedsigned impurity controlcertificates, payment dates orpre-production batch analysisdates.

The Anvisa defends its actions.The control of relevant

toxicological impurities isrequired as such impurities are

carcinogenic, and could causeharmonal impediments, it says.The agency has suspended thesale of batches of the product,Prime Plus (flumetralin).

The agency has also stopped thesale of : difenoconazole becauseof its unsatisfactory analysiscertificate; and Verdadero 600for confusing growers over its

toxicity level. The Anvisafurther cited Syngenta for theillegal sale of Acarmate.Cyhexatin products may onlybe sold in the state of Sao Paulo,but Acarmate was marketedoutside the state, the agencyexplains.

The Anvisa has advised thecompany to make changes to its

computerised system so that itcan effectively control thequantity of components in eachbatch of its formulations. It willcarry out a compliance reviewwithin 30 days.

Syngenta is evaluating therequests made by the Anvisa,working on some adjustmentsand its defence on other

concerns raised by the agency.The company insists that itsproducts are safe andexhaustively tested prior tomarket introduction. We aretaking all necessary steps toensure there will be no losses toour distributors and thousands

of clients, the company toldAgrow.

Syngenta emphasises that thehealth of its workers andenvironmental concerns are itspriorities, adding that itsBrazilian facility in Paulinia hasbeen ISO-9001 certified since1996.

The infractions could result infines of up to R$ 1.5 million

($857,000), and the cancellingof toxicological evaluationreports for the named products.The agency has further calledon the public prosecutors officeto carry out a criminalinvestigation if other infractionsare found.

The Anvisa has suspended salesof products of the countrys two

largest pesticide companies inrecenet weeks. It halted the saleof several Bayer Crop Scienceproducts last month (Agrow No.577, p 21). The agencypreviously moved againstpesticides from theMakhteshim-Agan Industrysubsidiary, MileniaAgrociencias, and the Japaneseand Brazilian joint venture,

Iharabras. Some 5,500 tonnes ofpesticides have beenapprehended in the past threemonths.

*S ource: AGROW/No. 578/23-12-2009


24/31


The Group of 20 (G20), an allianceof 23 WTO member countries onagriculture led by mainly Indiaand Brazil, representing 51% ofthe world population and 63% ofthe worlds farmers, reflected theirgreat helplessness and inertia totake on US protectionist practicesand sought an easy route to dealwith it by calling for an urgentconclusion of Doha Round eventhough their fundamentaldemands are not addressed in the

current negotiating text. The G20held its two day Ministerialmeeting ahead of the SeventhWTO Ministerial Conferencewhich took place in Geneva from30th November to 2nd December2009.

The communique issued by theG20 on 29 November, says thatconcluding the DohaDevelopment Round would result

in a triple win: (i) strengtheningof the confidence in themultilateral trading system; (ii)guarding against the rise ofprotectionism; and (iii)contributing to boost the globaleconomy while reducing itsasymmetries. It further says thatthe Ministers of the G20 calledfor urgent action on the DohaRound...there is urgent need to

translate political statements intoconcrete engagement in Geneva inorder to accomplish the sharedobjective of concluding the Roundin 2010...the only way to achievethis objective is to seekconvergence on the basis of thedraft modalities texts of December2008.

This is a big shift in the G20position since its formation in2003, just before the 5th WTOMinisterial in Cancun. This is thefirst G20 communique in last sixyears which is quite hushed in itsbasic demand for effectivereduction of subsidies indeveloped countries, mainly theUS and European Union (EU).Ironically, the G20 communiquedoes not make any of itsfundamental demands regarding

Special & Differential Treatment,especially Special Products (SP)and Special SafeguardMechanisms (SSM), which theG20 has been associated with. SPsand SSMs are ostensibly intendedto protect the interests of the vastmasses of poor peasantry indeveloping countries, but it seemsthat the G20 is willing to acceptthe watered down, inadequateand ineffective SP and SSM

provisions outlined in the Chairstext in December 2008.

The G20 Ministerial meeting on 20 July 2008 in Geneva had statedthat the developed countries areaccountable for the maindistortions and restrictions inagriculture trade and policiesand called for achievingeffective cuts in the Overall

Trade-Distorting DomesticSupport (OTDS). They alsounderscored the importance ofmaking Special and Differential(S&D) treatment operative andintegral to the negotiations in thethree pillars... and emphasised thevital role of SPs, in addressing thefood security, rural development

and livelihood concerns ofdeveloping countries, and of theSSM. However what theyaccepted under the December2008 text is a complete turnaround.

The December 2008 text providesfor a 70% reduction in allowablesubsidies in the US which wouldbring down, if the US agrees tothis, subsides to $14.5 billion fromthe present allowable level of

$48.7 billion under the Agreementon Agriculture (AoA). But theactual current level of suchsubsidies was only around $8billion in 2007, thus allowing theUS to double their subsidies fromthe actual level of subsides. Theworst is that all this reductionwill not at all affect theburgeoning subsidies under theso-called green box (estimatedcurrently at $50 billion and

constitute around 80% of the totalsubsidy bill of USA) which is notsubject to any reductioncommitment.

Even the safeguard provisions onthe SPs are quite watered-downfrom the G20s original demandfor 20% of the tariff lines to be selfdesignated as Special Products.The current negotiating draft

provides for only 12% of tarifflines being eligible to be treated asSpecial Products and of these,only 40%, i.e. only 5% of the tarifflines, to be subject to no tariff cutand remaining 60 % i.e. 7% of tarifflines to be subject to an averageof 19 % cut. In the Indian context,out of the approximately 700 tariff

G20 mutes its demand at the cost of its farmers*Afsar Jafri


25/31


lines in agriculture, only 35 lineswould be subject to no tariff cutsand 49 lines subject to a tariff cutof 19 %. Commenting on thisprovision of December text, Mr.SP Shukla of the Indian Peoples

Campaign against WTO saidconsidering vast multiplicity ofIndias agricultural product rangeand the crucial importance ofthese products for livelihood, therange of protection available is toonarrow and too weak.

Moreover, the conditionalities forthe use of price based andvolume based SSM as protection

mechanisms are designed in sucha way that it makes themineffective in case of importsurges. Instead of being flexibleand practical for developingcountries, the December text putsseveral conditions which wouldmake it impossible for theimporting countries to impose anyextra tariffs if they feel that thecheap imports would affect theirdomestic farm sectors and impact

livelihoods, rural developmentand food security of the people.Some of these conditions are quiteproblematic, for example, thevolume based SSMs can be usedonly for two consecutive periods;the application of SSMs will onlybe on Most Favoured Nation(MFN) tariff level only; the volumeand price based SSMs cannot beused for en route shipments; the

volume based SSMs will beapplicable only when thedomestic price crashes down; themaximum period of volume basedSSM is 4-8 months only; themaximum number of tariff lineswhich can avail the SSMprovisions is just 2.5 %; and theuppermost limit for the price

based SSM remedy are the tariffswhich countries bound duringUruguay Round. Theseconditions makes the SSM aextremely weak safety net forthe millions of low income and

resource poor rural households inthe developing countries whohave very little ability to absorbprice fluctuations and a flood ofsubsidised imports of agriculturalproducts. Further, thesecondition-ridden provisions donot respond to the originaldemand of the G33 which askedfor an effective, flexible, practicaland operable special safeguard

mechanisms. On the other handthe developed countries havecrafted a more flexible andpractical special safeguardprovisions (SSG) for themselveswhich is mainly price based anddoes not have any suchcumbersome conditions for itseffective operation.

The farmers and civil societygroups present in Geneva are

quite upset with the positions ofG20 and G33 member countries onthe December 2008 text. Theyplaced their trust in the proposedinstrumentalities of SpecialProducts and Special SafeguardMechanism but what is on thetable is inadequate to provide anyprotection to the poor farmers indeveloping countries who areaffected by cheap subsidised

imports from developedcountries. Their major concern isthat the recent Delhi Ministerialin September 2009 took a decisionto negotiate only that part of theDecember 2008 text which has notyet been agreed to and are stillunder brackets. Unfortunately avery small part of the SSM text in

bracketed which means that mostprovisions and conditionalities onthe SSM have been agreed andwill not be opened up for anyfurther discussion during theDoha Round negotiations. For

example the price based SSMprovisions are not bracketed at alland hence there will be no furtherdiscussion on that, even thoughcountries like Philippines aretrying hard to open up thediscussion.

Farmers and civil society groupsare also concerned that thedeveloping countries have made

their commitment to cut theiragriculture tariff by 36 % but thereis no final commitment from thedeveloped countries on theelimination or even substantialreduction of their agriculturalsubsidies. And if the Doha Roundis concluded, and the possibilityis that this will be whenever USdecides to move, with thetruncated and ineffectiveprovisions on SP and SSM, the

developing countries will have nobargaining chip to demand forany further reduction in any kindof subsidies of the developedcountries. This will be suicidal forthe agriculture and agriculturebased economies of the South andthe fundamental imbalancesamong WTO members will persistfor ever.

*Research Associate with Focuson the Global [email protected]


26/31


Agriculture likely to sufferfrom climate change, thehungry and poor will be

mostly affected

Agriculture in the Near East islikely to suffer losses because ofhigh temperature, droughts,floods and soil degradationthreatening the food security ofmany countries, FAO said.

Hunger and malnutrition causedby climate change will mostprobably affect those who arealready poor, malnourished ordependent on local foodproduction, according to a reportthat will be discussed at the FAORegional Conference for the (1-5March 2008), held in Cairo.

The Middle East and North Africa

are particularly exposed to watershortages. An additional 155 to600 million people may suffer anincrease in water stress in NorthAfrica with a 3 Celsiustemperature rise.

The number of dry days isexpected to increase everywherein the region, said WulfKillmann, chair of FAOs workinggroup on climate change. The

number of frost days shoulddecrease, while heat waves in theregions more continental areasmight become more frequent. Asa result, the length of growingseasons should decrease. Moreefficient water and energy use,sustainable agriculture, betterforest management and

afforestation are key measures tomitigate the effects of climatechange, Killmann added.Adding to the stress

Changes in temperature, rainfalland climatic extremes will onlyadd to the stress on agriculturalresources in a region, where landavailability and degradation, foodprice shocks and population

growth are already a majorconcern.

Arable land is limited in the aridand semi-arid areas that covermost of the region, makingagriculture potentially highlyvulnerable to climate change.

Shifts in rainfall patterns willaffect crops, particularly rice, in

many countries in the Near East.Yemen is particularly at risk givenits existing low income levels,rapidly growing population andacute water shortage.

Many of the regions irrigationsystems are under considerableenvironmental strain due tosalinity, water logging or over-exploitation of groundwater.

Groundwater, including non-renewable fossil water, is ofprimary importance in mostcountries of the region.

Risk of conflict

Competition for water within theregion and across its borders may

grow, carrying the risk of conflict.Some parts of the region,particularly the Nile Delta and theGulf coast of the ArabianPeninsula, are particularlyvulnerable to flooding from risingsea levels.

Due to complex interactions ofmany factors, crop growing maybecome unsustainable in someareas. For example, maize yields

in North Africa could fall bybetween 15 and 25 percent with3C rise in temperature.

Once temperature increasesreach 3 or 4C, the impacts willbe strongest across Western Asiaand the Middle East, where yieldsof the predominant regional cropsmay fall by 23 to 35 percent withweak carbon fertilization, or 15 to

20 percent with strong carbonfertilization. In West Asia, climatechange is likely to cause severewater stress throughout thiscentury, the report said.

Many countries in the region havebeen major wheat and riceimporters. Climate change mayincrease this dependence onimports.

Livestock pest and diseasedistribution and theirtransmission patterns will bealtered, with epidemics almostcertain.

FAO urged countries in the NearEast to address the imminentthreats related to climate change.

Effect of Climate Change and Efforts are needed to Protect theBiodiversity and Food Security in India.

*Dr. R.B. Thakare


27/31


Agriculture should be promotedas a key player in the reductionof greenhouse gases.Conservation agriculture, waterharvesting, afforestation,sustainable management offorests and rangelands, soilstorage of carbon, improvedfertilizer use and the carefulpromotion of bioenergy inclimatically suitable areas shouldbe applied to mitigate climatechange, Killmann said.

FAO works with governments,rural communities and researchinstitutions and provides global

data, analytical tools and models,crop forecasting and impactmonitoring and information onclimate change related risks.

High-level conference IsNeeded

It is a unique opportunity forpolicy-makers to broaden theperspective and to discuss howclimate change affects agriculture

- and how agriculture cancontribute to reduce climatechange, said Alexander Mller,FAO Assistant Director-General.Climate change threatens thelivelihoods of millions of people inrural areas, all over the world..But improved farming also has akey role to play reducinggreenhouse gases.

BIODIVERSITY WILL BEAFFECTED DUE TO CLIMATECHANGE

Biodiversity refers to variety offorms around us. It includes theplants, birds, insects, fungi, fishes,bacteria and viruses.

It is recognized at three levelsnamely species level, genetic leveland ecosystem level. Gene

december 2009 national magazine of farmers voice

Documents