“ U.s.-india Knowledge Initiative On Agricultural Education, Research, Service And Commercial Linkages” Aka Aki / Kia
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View “ U.s.-india Knowledge Initiative On Agricultural Education, Research, Service And Commercial Linkages” Aka Aki / Kia as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,352
- Pages: 30
“U.S.-India Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Service and Commercial Linkages” aka AKI / KIA Kavitha Kuruganti Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Importance of a debate on KIA….
Supposed to attain and sustain the second and ever-green revolution in Indian agriculture Agreement at the highest level – considered by many as the trade-off for India’s “gains” on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal GR processes were untouched by civil society for various reasons – cannot afford to let another GR happen with similar results Science & Democracy – opening agriculture research institutions to
Why is this of significance to us?
Content (per se) – what the KIA proposes to do – institutional mechanisms being used Links with the larger reality and with the past – the analysis and the diagnosis Undemocratic processes adopted and being adopted even now The potential socio-political implications especially for Indian
CRISIS in INDIAN FARMING MACRO-LEVEL
Country’s food security shaky? Increasing imports – more need to compete in the face of liberalisation even in domestic markets “Ecological damage & technology fatigue” Climate change impacts Irrelevant agriculture research, collapsing agriculture extension systems – public sector research share coming down steadily Major land use shifts – land from agriculture to non-agricultural uses; from food grains to non-food grains; from food uses to feed for certain grains. Water crisis – quality, over-exploitation,
CRISIS FOR FARMERS…. FARMER LEVEL
Factor productivity coming down – of land, fertilisers, seeds, water etc. etc. Cost of production increasing constantly Unremunerative markets – unfavourable markets Displacement from land – EXIT? No dignity and social status attached to the profession More margins shifting away from primary producers Land degradation and exploitation of water resources Lifestyle changes –increasing income aspirations
Indian Farming at Crossroads
Further intensification (high external inputs) Vs. Internalisation into farming systems – control over nature Vs. cooperation with nature Export markets Vs. Domestic markets Liberalisation Vs. Import Substitution (“livelihood security”) Genetic diversity Vs. Monocropping at the gene level Public good through public sector Vs. Agri agenda driven by commercial interests Centralised processes Vs. Community-upwards agriculture development processes Techno-centric Vs. Holistic development processes Institutionalised knowledge Vs. Knowledge with farmers FARMERS [& THEIR FARM LIVELIHOODS] Vs. AGRICULTURE [without millions of farmers!]
What are the policy-makers saying?
Kisan Policy: "Ecology, equity, economics and employment are the foundations of our report” - Swaminathan ‘Need for pro-nature, pro-poor, pro-women and prolivelihood orientation’.
Land (assess soil fertility; land consolidation; prime farmland not to be diverted to SEZs) Water (more efficient use of water – equity in water – a drought code) Credit and Insurance (debt restructuring, expand credit, comprehensive insurance for farm families) Technology (diff. technologies for diff. kinds of farmlands – low risk techniques in drought prone areas) Markets (Price Stabilisation mechanism – Market Intervention Scheme – Universal PDS – Livelihood Security Box)
NCF’s draft Kisan Policy Specifically on Agri Research & Extension The research strategy should be pronature and pro-small farmer. There is a growing gap between scientific know-how and field level do-how. In addition to the retraining and retooling of existing extension personnel, there is a need to promote farmer to farmer learning. The motto of these universities should be “every scholar an entrepreneur”.
11th Plan approach paper Demand side intervention – expanded ruralrural trade, through employment generation programmes amongst other things Supply side strategy – exploiting potential of existing technology for cereals, pulses and oilseeds; bridging knowledge deficit – effective linkages between universities and farmers; creating good extension system; credit at reasonable terms; addressing insurance and other risk management issues; specific strategies needed for different agro-climatic zones; Expansion of major and medium irrigation; participatory irrigation management; Increased focus on groundwater management in rainfed areas
11th Plan approach paper
Focus of the National Agricultural Research System (NARS): Clearer demarcation of responsibilities within NARS between basic research (may not contribute immediately to growth), and more immediate requirement to adapt and disseminate existing technology and provide region-specific problem solving capacity
"Our first Green Revolution benefited in substantial measure from assistance provided by the U.S. We are hopeful that the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture will become the harbinger of a second green revolution in our country“ – Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, in the US Congress in 2005
KIA: Chronology of events
July 18th 2005: Manmohan Singh’s visit to the US – KIA agreement finalized – establishing a standing Indo-US Joint Working Group July 20th 2005: MoU on S&T signed between India & US November 12th 2005: Joint Declaration by Mangala Rai & J B Penn December 15th & 16th, 2005: 1st Board Meeting Washington DC February 13th & 14th, 2006: 2nd Board Meeting in Delhi March 2006: George Bush visits India, specifically Hyderabad (May 22nd 2006: USA approaches the WTO on India’s GM regulatory regime and invokes the joint collaboration in its questioning) June 6th & 7th, 2006: 3rd Board Meeting in
KIA budget outlays Education, learning resources, curriculum development & training……….………..65 crores Food Processing, Use of byproducts & bio-fuels………….……45 crores Emerging Technologies……………...214.5 crores (61%) Water Management……………………..25.5 crores Over 500 faculty members expected to be trained over 3 years out of around 4450 scientific posts in
Agri research budgetstrend 2001-02 (plan) 2002-03 (plan) 2003-04 (plan) 2004-05 (plan) 2005-06 (plan) 2006-07 (plan)
684 crores 775 crores 775 crores 1000 crores 1150 crores 1315 crores
Indo-US Knowledge Initiative Budgets: 350 crores over 3 years (115 crores per year on an average) – about 9% of the plan outlay. From the US’s side, no budgets put aside!
Under Theme 1 of Agri Research & Education Shifting of approach from (i) piecemeal to holistic solutions, (ii) commodity to production systems, (iiI) applied to basic and strategic research, (iv) mono-disciplinary to interdisciplinary research, (v) single institution to cross organization and trans country working and (vi) home-based consumer to marketdriven agriculture.
Objectives of re-orienting education, learning resources, curricula & training
To enhance quality and relevance of higher education through reorientation and refinement of course curricula, learning resources and delivery processes. To develop and enhance human capacity in the emerging areas through training and faculty exchange To promote industry-academia interaction to enhance relevance of education and research on a changing time scale.
Proposed activities
Training (Inservice & group) Faculty exchange (participation in collaborative research, team visits, post doctoral programmes) Workshops Consultancy Public-Private partnership
Expected outcome includes “graduates with more social responsiveness on issues such as environment, equity, poverty alleviation etc.”
Under Theme 2: Food Processing, Byproduct Utilisation & Biofuels
“Post harvest losses amount to 50,000 crores in India; Value addition to agro-produce is 7% compared to 60-70% in developed world” OBJECTIVES: Development of technology for innovative processed and value added products from plant and livestock produce. Development of technology for an economic utilization of agricultural byproducts. Development of technology for bio-fuels from agricultural biomass. Human resource development in critical areas of agro-processing and value addition.
Budget estimates under this theme Food Processing Byproduct Utilization Biofuel
24.5 crores 55 crores 15 crores
Expected Output: • “Knowledge about hidden wealth in biological materials” • “Availability of specialty foods and industry raw materials that meet consumer/ industrial need within India & abroad”
Under Theme 3 of Biotechnology
Genomics in crops, animals and fishes [pigeonpea, water buffalo, finfish]: 90 crores of Rs. Molecular breeding in crops and animals [pulses, wheat, okra etc.]: 30 crores of Rs. Development of transgenic crops, animals and fishes [rice, wheat, mustard, banana, papaya, cassava etc.]: 25 crores of Rs. Molecular approaches for plant and animal health protection [to detect GM from nonGM, for eg]: 59.5 crores of Rs. Quality assurance, value addition and safety of food products: 10 crores of Rs.
Theme 4 of Water Management
To develop and demonstrate water management strategies for enhancing water use efficiency and productivity from field to system/sub basin level in irrigated and rainfed areas. To evolve technological and institutional interventions for augmentation and effective use and reuse/recycling of poor and marginal quality water. To integrate modern technology with incremental methods to assist in planning, management and dissemination of information for sustainable use of water resources with special emphasis on uncertainty and risk management. To evolve enabling processes for influencing
Water management….
Sustainable use of groundwater resources [7 crores] Water quality management and remediation [6 crores] Use of Modern tools in water management [3 crores] Assessment and management of agricultural drought [9.5 crores] – incl. cost effective agro-chemicals for enhancing water use efficiency, conservation agriculture etc.
The Board of the KIA Board Members (Indian side) Honorary Adviser: Dr. M.S. Swaminathan Co-chair: Dr. Mangala Rai, Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and Education & Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Government Representatives i) Dr. S. Jai Shankar, Joint Secretary (America), Ministry of External Affairs ii) Shri S.L. Bhat, Joint Secretary (Crops, Seeds & TMOP), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. Representatives from State Agricultural Universities/lCAR Institutions i) Dr. P.L Gautam, Vice Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar. ii) Dr. C. Ramasamy, Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore iii) Dr. M.P Yadav, Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Representatives from Private Sector - Agri-business i) Shri Firoze Masani, Masani Farm, Nasik, Maharashtra.
Board of the KIA Board Members (US side) Honorary Adviser: Dr. Norman Borlaug Co-Chair: Ms. Ellen Terpstra, Administrator, USDA/FAS Universities 1. Mr. Mortimer Neufville, Executive Vice President, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). 2. Mr. Bobby Moser, Vice President and Executive Dean, College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University. 3. Mr. Surendra P. Singh, Professor, Agribusiness Tennessee State University. Non Government Organization Mr. Marshall Bouton, Executive Director, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Private Sector 1. Representative of Monsanto 2. Representative of Wal-mart. 3. Representative of Archer Daniels Midland Company
Some issues of concern & contention What similarities exist between Indian and US
agriculture that we can learn from each other? – Technology cannot be set in a social vacuum What lessons have been learnt from the GR? Is it a mindless repetition of a similar exercise? What was the context of the earlier GR and the present context? Why was the “land grant philosophy” abandoned for GR and why is the philosophy so unidirectional even now? Will techno-centric answers solve the problems of Indian farmers today? Is it the lack of technologies or research that is the cause of many problems witnessed today? How will any amount of technology upgradation on agri-processing and by-product utilisation help if basic trade issues are not resolved towards a level playing field?
Content of KIA per se
On Agri Research, Education & Extension: Publicprivate partnership – shift to basic & strategic research; Distance education, E-extension – Will more and more virtual learning mean more distance from the farmers’ reality? Research tailored to meet needs of commercial enterprise Transgenic technology – all the unresolved issues Bio-fuels promotion – Contract Farming (for such contracts to work, shifts to varieties that are more suitable to processing!!) Community based water management models available within India. Similarly, drought-proofing is not a technical issue but more of a socio-political issue IPRs will be a major contentious issue Targeted at legal issues like biotechnology regulation, IPRs, contract farming and changing the regulatory regime in India
Processes involved….
If it is indeed the launch of the second Green Revolution, no debate at all – was there an official assessment of the Green Revolution and lessons learnt? Were there any lessons picked up about innovations in civil society? No analysis apparent for the situation experienced today – the problems are listed as “exciting challenges & opportunities”! Though an agreement at the highest level, no parliamentary discussion Agriculture also a state subject – no involvement of the state governments Farmers’ organisations were not consulted and all major organisations were against this deal! How were the issues selected for the joint collaboration? How was it assessed that India lacks expertise on the chosen issues or that it needs such expertise? Different even from the collaborations during GR – private sector taking a lead now. IPRs a major issue now. The US paid at that time in the form of organisations like Ford & Rockefeller.
Many unanswered questions….
Is this about India being a testing ground for several technologies? Will India have free access to public sector technology in the US? Who will hold IPRs for what is created? Is this only for facilitating agri-business investments in India? There is no mention of agribusiness investments in the US from Indian side! Who will this deal have accountability to? No mention of any safety nets… Technology generation and adoption was supposedly bridged by the extension department earlier – what is the re-orientation of agri research telling us here?
Potential socio-political implications
Free access to our genetic resources Changes in our IPR regime here Lax regulation with GM crops and GM crops pushed in an aggressive manner Domestic retail sector taken over by MNCs Contract farming driving farming here – small farmers thrown out of farming Public money from India paying for the firmer establishment of American commercial interests within India More legitimacy to companies like Monsanto and Cargill known for their anti-farmer policies – legitimacy to biopiracy…? The last nail on the public sector’s coffin? Or the last nail on the Indian farmer?
In Conclusion….
By itself, KIA may not be able to bring about massive changes other than significant changes in terms of policy/legislative changes and creating more spaces for private players at the expense of Indian farmers and public sector
A combination of KIA with other programmes and policies might create the last disaster for Indian farmers….
Importance of a debate on KIA….
Supposed to attain and sustain the second and ever-green revolution in Indian agriculture Agreement at the highest level – considered by many as the trade-off for India’s “gains” on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal GR processes were untouched by civil society for various reasons – cannot afford to let another GR happen with similar results Science & Democracy – opening agriculture research institutions to
Why is this of significance to us?
Content (per se) – what the KIA proposes to do – institutional mechanisms being used Links with the larger reality and with the past – the analysis and the diagnosis Undemocratic processes adopted and being adopted even now The potential socio-political implications especially for Indian
CRISIS in INDIAN FARMING MACRO-LEVEL
Country’s food security shaky? Increasing imports – more need to compete in the face of liberalisation even in domestic markets “Ecological damage & technology fatigue” Climate change impacts Irrelevant agriculture research, collapsing agriculture extension systems – public sector research share coming down steadily Major land use shifts – land from agriculture to non-agricultural uses; from food grains to non-food grains; from food uses to feed for certain grains. Water crisis – quality, over-exploitation,
CRISIS FOR FARMERS…. FARMER LEVEL
Factor productivity coming down – of land, fertilisers, seeds, water etc. etc. Cost of production increasing constantly Unremunerative markets – unfavourable markets Displacement from land – EXIT? No dignity and social status attached to the profession More margins shifting away from primary producers Land degradation and exploitation of water resources Lifestyle changes –increasing income aspirations
Indian Farming at Crossroads
Further intensification (high external inputs) Vs. Internalisation into farming systems – control over nature Vs. cooperation with nature Export markets Vs. Domestic markets Liberalisation Vs. Import Substitution (“livelihood security”) Genetic diversity Vs. Monocropping at the gene level Public good through public sector Vs. Agri agenda driven by commercial interests Centralised processes Vs. Community-upwards agriculture development processes Techno-centric Vs. Holistic development processes Institutionalised knowledge Vs. Knowledge with farmers FARMERS [& THEIR FARM LIVELIHOODS] Vs. AGRICULTURE [without millions of farmers!]
What are the policy-makers saying?
Kisan Policy: "Ecology, equity, economics and employment are the foundations of our report” - Swaminathan ‘Need for pro-nature, pro-poor, pro-women and prolivelihood orientation’.
Land (assess soil fertility; land consolidation; prime farmland not to be diverted to SEZs) Water (more efficient use of water – equity in water – a drought code) Credit and Insurance (debt restructuring, expand credit, comprehensive insurance for farm families) Technology (diff. technologies for diff. kinds of farmlands – low risk techniques in drought prone areas) Markets (Price Stabilisation mechanism – Market Intervention Scheme – Universal PDS – Livelihood Security Box)
NCF’s draft Kisan Policy Specifically on Agri Research & Extension The research strategy should be pronature and pro-small farmer. There is a growing gap between scientific know-how and field level do-how. In addition to the retraining and retooling of existing extension personnel, there is a need to promote farmer to farmer learning. The motto of these universities should be “every scholar an entrepreneur”.
11th Plan approach paper Demand side intervention – expanded ruralrural trade, through employment generation programmes amongst other things Supply side strategy – exploiting potential of existing technology for cereals, pulses and oilseeds; bridging knowledge deficit – effective linkages between universities and farmers; creating good extension system; credit at reasonable terms; addressing insurance and other risk management issues; specific strategies needed for different agro-climatic zones; Expansion of major and medium irrigation; participatory irrigation management; Increased focus on groundwater management in rainfed areas
11th Plan approach paper
Focus of the National Agricultural Research System (NARS): Clearer demarcation of responsibilities within NARS between basic research (may not contribute immediately to growth), and more immediate requirement to adapt and disseminate existing technology and provide region-specific problem solving capacity
"Our first Green Revolution benefited in substantial measure from assistance provided by the U.S. We are hopeful that the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture will become the harbinger of a second green revolution in our country“ – Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, in the US Congress in 2005
KIA: Chronology of events
July 18th 2005: Manmohan Singh’s visit to the US – KIA agreement finalized – establishing a standing Indo-US Joint Working Group July 20th 2005: MoU on S&T signed between India & US November 12th 2005: Joint Declaration by Mangala Rai & J B Penn December 15th & 16th, 2005: 1st Board Meeting Washington DC February 13th & 14th, 2006: 2nd Board Meeting in Delhi March 2006: George Bush visits India, specifically Hyderabad (May 22nd 2006: USA approaches the WTO on India’s GM regulatory regime and invokes the joint collaboration in its questioning) June 6th & 7th, 2006: 3rd Board Meeting in
KIA budget outlays Education, learning resources, curriculum development & training……….………..65 crores Food Processing, Use of byproducts & bio-fuels………….……45 crores Emerging Technologies……………...214.5 crores (61%) Water Management……………………..25.5 crores Over 500 faculty members expected to be trained over 3 years out of around 4450 scientific posts in
Agri research budgetstrend 2001-02 (plan) 2002-03 (plan) 2003-04 (plan) 2004-05 (plan) 2005-06 (plan) 2006-07 (plan)
684 crores 775 crores 775 crores 1000 crores 1150 crores 1315 crores
Indo-US Knowledge Initiative Budgets: 350 crores over 3 years (115 crores per year on an average) – about 9% of the plan outlay. From the US’s side, no budgets put aside!
Under Theme 1 of Agri Research & Education Shifting of approach from (i) piecemeal to holistic solutions, (ii) commodity to production systems, (iiI) applied to basic and strategic research, (iv) mono-disciplinary to interdisciplinary research, (v) single institution to cross organization and trans country working and (vi) home-based consumer to marketdriven agriculture.
Objectives of re-orienting education, learning resources, curricula & training
To enhance quality and relevance of higher education through reorientation and refinement of course curricula, learning resources and delivery processes. To develop and enhance human capacity in the emerging areas through training and faculty exchange To promote industry-academia interaction to enhance relevance of education and research on a changing time scale.
Proposed activities
Training (Inservice & group) Faculty exchange (participation in collaborative research, team visits, post doctoral programmes) Workshops Consultancy Public-Private partnership
Expected outcome includes “graduates with more social responsiveness on issues such as environment, equity, poverty alleviation etc.”
Under Theme 2: Food Processing, Byproduct Utilisation & Biofuels
“Post harvest losses amount to 50,000 crores in India; Value addition to agro-produce is 7% compared to 60-70% in developed world” OBJECTIVES: Development of technology for innovative processed and value added products from plant and livestock produce. Development of technology for an economic utilization of agricultural byproducts. Development of technology for bio-fuels from agricultural biomass. Human resource development in critical areas of agro-processing and value addition.
Budget estimates under this theme Food Processing Byproduct Utilization Biofuel
24.5 crores 55 crores 15 crores
Expected Output: • “Knowledge about hidden wealth in biological materials” • “Availability of specialty foods and industry raw materials that meet consumer/ industrial need within India & abroad”
Under Theme 3 of Biotechnology
Genomics in crops, animals and fishes [pigeonpea, water buffalo, finfish]: 90 crores of Rs. Molecular breeding in crops and animals [pulses, wheat, okra etc.]: 30 crores of Rs. Development of transgenic crops, animals and fishes [rice, wheat, mustard, banana, papaya, cassava etc.]: 25 crores of Rs. Molecular approaches for plant and animal health protection [to detect GM from nonGM, for eg]: 59.5 crores of Rs. Quality assurance, value addition and safety of food products: 10 crores of Rs.
Theme 4 of Water Management
To develop and demonstrate water management strategies for enhancing water use efficiency and productivity from field to system/sub basin level in irrigated and rainfed areas. To evolve technological and institutional interventions for augmentation and effective use and reuse/recycling of poor and marginal quality water. To integrate modern technology with incremental methods to assist in planning, management and dissemination of information for sustainable use of water resources with special emphasis on uncertainty and risk management. To evolve enabling processes for influencing
Water management….
Sustainable use of groundwater resources [7 crores] Water quality management and remediation [6 crores] Use of Modern tools in water management [3 crores] Assessment and management of agricultural drought [9.5 crores] – incl. cost effective agro-chemicals for enhancing water use efficiency, conservation agriculture etc.
The Board of the KIA Board Members (Indian side) Honorary Adviser: Dr. M.S. Swaminathan Co-chair: Dr. Mangala Rai, Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and Education & Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Government Representatives i) Dr. S. Jai Shankar, Joint Secretary (America), Ministry of External Affairs ii) Shri S.L. Bhat, Joint Secretary (Crops, Seeds & TMOP), Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. Representatives from State Agricultural Universities/lCAR Institutions i) Dr. P.L Gautam, Vice Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar. ii) Dr. C. Ramasamy, Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore iii) Dr. M.P Yadav, Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Representatives from Private Sector - Agri-business i) Shri Firoze Masani, Masani Farm, Nasik, Maharashtra.
Board of the KIA Board Members (US side) Honorary Adviser: Dr. Norman Borlaug Co-Chair: Ms. Ellen Terpstra, Administrator, USDA/FAS Universities 1. Mr. Mortimer Neufville, Executive Vice President, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). 2. Mr. Bobby Moser, Vice President and Executive Dean, College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio State University. 3. Mr. Surendra P. Singh, Professor, Agribusiness Tennessee State University. Non Government Organization Mr. Marshall Bouton, Executive Director, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Private Sector 1. Representative of Monsanto 2. Representative of Wal-mart. 3. Representative of Archer Daniels Midland Company
Some issues of concern & contention What similarities exist between Indian and US
agriculture that we can learn from each other? – Technology cannot be set in a social vacuum What lessons have been learnt from the GR? Is it a mindless repetition of a similar exercise? What was the context of the earlier GR and the present context? Why was the “land grant philosophy” abandoned for GR and why is the philosophy so unidirectional even now? Will techno-centric answers solve the problems of Indian farmers today? Is it the lack of technologies or research that is the cause of many problems witnessed today? How will any amount of technology upgradation on agri-processing and by-product utilisation help if basic trade issues are not resolved towards a level playing field?
Content of KIA per se
On Agri Research, Education & Extension: Publicprivate partnership – shift to basic & strategic research; Distance education, E-extension – Will more and more virtual learning mean more distance from the farmers’ reality? Research tailored to meet needs of commercial enterprise Transgenic technology – all the unresolved issues Bio-fuels promotion – Contract Farming (for such contracts to work, shifts to varieties that are more suitable to processing!!) Community based water management models available within India. Similarly, drought-proofing is not a technical issue but more of a socio-political issue IPRs will be a major contentious issue Targeted at legal issues like biotechnology regulation, IPRs, contract farming and changing the regulatory regime in India
Processes involved….
If it is indeed the launch of the second Green Revolution, no debate at all – was there an official assessment of the Green Revolution and lessons learnt? Were there any lessons picked up about innovations in civil society? No analysis apparent for the situation experienced today – the problems are listed as “exciting challenges & opportunities”! Though an agreement at the highest level, no parliamentary discussion Agriculture also a state subject – no involvement of the state governments Farmers’ organisations were not consulted and all major organisations were against this deal! How were the issues selected for the joint collaboration? How was it assessed that India lacks expertise on the chosen issues or that it needs such expertise? Different even from the collaborations during GR – private sector taking a lead now. IPRs a major issue now. The US paid at that time in the form of organisations like Ford & Rockefeller.
Many unanswered questions….
Is this about India being a testing ground for several technologies? Will India have free access to public sector technology in the US? Who will hold IPRs for what is created? Is this only for facilitating agri-business investments in India? There is no mention of agribusiness investments in the US from Indian side! Who will this deal have accountability to? No mention of any safety nets… Technology generation and adoption was supposedly bridged by the extension department earlier – what is the re-orientation of agri research telling us here?
Potential socio-political implications
Free access to our genetic resources Changes in our IPR regime here Lax regulation with GM crops and GM crops pushed in an aggressive manner Domestic retail sector taken over by MNCs Contract farming driving farming here – small farmers thrown out of farming Public money from India paying for the firmer establishment of American commercial interests within India More legitimacy to companies like Monsanto and Cargill known for their anti-farmer policies – legitimacy to biopiracy…? The last nail on the public sector’s coffin? Or the last nail on the Indian farmer?
In Conclusion….
By itself, KIA may not be able to bring about massive changes other than significant changes in terms of policy/legislative changes and creating more spaces for private players at the expense of Indian farmers and public sector
A combination of KIA with other programmes and policies might create the last disaster for Indian farmers….
Related Documents
Ethiopian Education Research On Education
April 2020 11
Aki
April 2020 20
Usda Foreign Agricultural Service
June 2020 5
Ammal And Knowledge For Education
June 2020 9
Aki
May 2020 21
More Documents from ""
Financial Inclusion In India
May 2020 12
