In the Jaws of Climate Change

It was March 1st when suddenly unexpected flooding in the River Chenab created havoc in the lives of villagers living on the banks of Chenab in Multan District. Small farmers, a vast majority of which were actually leasing land, lost their precious wheat harvest, which was just days away from being harvested. These very farmers had also suffered from the Monsoon floods in September 2014. They had been displaced at that time, then once again in March. And now once again the much-feared monsoon is here. So in essence, in a ten-month period villagers have moved from their abode thrice; for many farmers, they were not able to go back to their original abode as that area was submerged in water. Waters when they receded did so only partially. The poorest, most marginalized have no permanent residence. They are forced to live in areas that is not taken up by others.

The kachaarea farmers, that is riverine belt farmers who live outside the embankments (made by the government to save the agricultural land and communities) watch the rising water levels and anxiously seek news on flood waters coming from upper regions of the country and from across the border in India. For those of us who do not face the daily torture of living next to ‘sleeping dragon’ are oblivious to the anxiety and helplessness of the kachaarea communities.

Most of the farmers living on the river banks are landless – they lease land for the year – paying in the range of Rs 12,000 to Rs 24,000 for the year. If you ask them how much do you pay – their response is not in monetary figures – instead they will say 10 maunds of wheat which is approximately Rs 12,000. Their response tells us that for them, land is food, and to access land is to ensure their food security. However, this must be a very bitter payment given the land is submerged in water for nearly four months of the year. The landlords, irrespective of flooding demand the full payment. The oppression of the feudal system can be seen vividly in the riverine areas. According to a farmer “zamindardariyamaezameendubnaedaega per humkokabhizameennahibataega “(A landlord would rather have his land lost to the river rather than distribute it to the us – the landless).

Apart from the constant exploitation of the landlords, riverine farmers have to deal with many other atrocities and hardships, daily. Now that the water levels are rising, many communities are already separated from the mainland by the formation of small rivers which are cutting across small parts of land and dividing communities. So, small daily chores have now become painstaking – for example taking children to the neighborhood doctor is now no more a walking journey. People have to walk a distance to the newly formed river, catch a boat – get off on the other side, walk some more to reach the doctor’s clinic, or the market place- and then of course the arduous journey back.

Women agricultural workers also face increased hardship: they work throughout the year in the neighbouring fields of their community. With the entire area divided by the encroaching river water, the surrounding farms are no more approachable by foot. So these women end up taking the local boats from one area to the other, sometimes, even taking two boats or in some cases wading through water holding their tools of trade and children – all for a small meager payment in cash or kind. The general trend is to pay women by the day – generally from Rs 120-150 for a six-hour work period. For many of the food crops such as moongi – women will pick a small-pail full. On picking four pails they get one pail as payment. All this in the blistering heat of Multan – where temperatures are reaching the high forties – the scorching sun and immense humidity makes breathing difficult. It is in such extreme temperatures that men and women work to earn enough for that day’s food.

11705647_1098845470145570_786972235_o (1)

Hardships

Our team had work in the communities. Of the four villages visited in our two-day work plan, only one village was now accessible by road. For the others we had to use local boats. It was a hot summer day; the sun was shining in its full glory. At the riverside there were many people waiting for the motor boat that was coming nearly every 15-20 minutes carrying passengers to and fro from the two banks.  The small boat was jam packed with mostly farmers, men as well as women along with their children;people were sitting close to each other, uncomfortably. Almost all of them were going for work. On our journey on the way back we had to wait for nearly half-an hour on the bank – on the other side of the small river we could see the boat unloading a lot of stuff which included jute bags filled with some produce, milk men carrying with their milk pails and even men who had ferried their motor bikes to the other side. Finally, the boat came for us and we all piled in. We found that our fellow passengers included 9-10 women with some young girls. They were were coming back from picking arvi, which is a root vegetable. For a full day work, they were paid the usual rate of Rs 120 for the six hour work they had put in. It was interesting to observe that they were more concerned about us riding the boat in such hot weather but did not think about their own hardship. They kept on commenting on why did we found it necessary to do our work on such a hot day? For us urban people it was hot – what about them? They had toiled much more than us.

11725227_1098843503479100_288523109_o

11727784_1098849720145145_674031768_o

A new member of out team was shocked by the circumstances of the people. She had many questions on the suffering of the people. Why is the daily routine of the villagers so tough? Who is responsible for this? And is there no one to feel seethe pain and sufferings of our most hardworking sector, a sector that is responsible for providing food for the entire country? Why do they work so much? And then in return, all that they have is a meager handful of food and with no amenities that would ease their lives! Why?

 As we traveled along with other people in a small boat, a question asked by a woman named Ruquiya underlined the class difference that these marginalized communities face. Her eyes filled with sadness inquired, “we are all humans than why are our conditions so different?”

The question if answered truthfully can only point to the unequal distribution of land where a very small number of people in the country own a majority of the land forcing others to either work as labour or lease land. Both occupations yield a bitter harvest – forcing people to go without all basic needs including food, water, shelter, education and health.

On the second day we went to two other villages again using boats. Our short exposure to the daily hardships of the people gave us a closer view to the enduring hardship of the people. At the same time, it also showed us clearly the ability of our people to survive against such difficult odds. The boat that we took to access the first village was without a motor-boat. It took us about an hour tocross a small distance that would not have taken us more than 10 minutes if we had walked and in a motor boat maybe 15 minutes. Apart from other passengers In the boat, there were 12 agriculture women workers who were going to pick a food crop called moongi. As the boat was pushed off the bank, women kept on calling out to the young children – mostly girls – who had walked with them to the boat, to go back home. It was clear that these women were very uncomfortable leaving their young children at home to fend for themselves: but they had no other option as they had to earn a living or to be more exact, earn the food they would have been able to get as payment in kind.

DSC02681

11352216_1098851140145003_444466366_o

During the journey we talked to the women getting details of their work. Of these twelve women, one was a small farmer who had come to collect the women for picking moongi from her land; the total land area was no more than five canals (equivalent to just a bit more than half-an acre of land). Each woman would in the end be hardly able to get even a full pail of moongi in return for her labor.

11727796_1098853550144762_1288291207_o

After getting down from the boat we drove to toward the next village – about a 15 minute drive.  Then we took a self-made raft to the next bank. Village people hade made it with styrofoam wrapped in cloth and put an old wooden door on the top. The door still had nails and hinges protruding which was unsafe as it was rusty and could cause injury. The ‘boatman’ told us that if pushed he could actually seat 18 people on the raft if they would sit with their backs to each other in a tight fit. We were only five of ous on the raft and still were finding it difficult to balance our selves. We wondered on the ability of these people to make do and survive no matter what. In any case, after the raft journey we again walked a small distance and then another small raft took us to our destination. On the way back, in the first patch of river the raft was there to take us back. But when we got to the next water inlet, there was nothing to take us further. The small raft had gone with a load full of people to another village. So we decided to walk through the water. According to the community people, it was ok to walk through the water if we walked holding hands a forming a long chain of people. The water-bed was muddy and slippery and it took us a while to cross the small water belt.

11745283_1098857003477750_668823290_oWhat was a difficult journey for us was routine for the community people. They face the coming and going of river-inlets every few months; they point to a place under water and say this is where they were living just a few months ago; another patch of land was their abode last year and so on. According to the villagers, in the past years water would only come in to their lands during the monsoon season but now even during the winter months they are not safe.

These two days in the riverine communities made it clear what was it to live in the kacha areas. What is narrated here is basically only the journey to the communities. In the boats we saw people coming and going for various reasons – from daily chores such as household marketing to visiting the doctor or buying medicines or going to work. All of this was in addition to their daily living. In villages we saw people keeping small kitchen gardens for their daily food needs; women were maintaining mulching animal so that they could have milk for their daily consumption.

11725547_1098856670144450_1968598394_o

One woman was growing red chilies; she had laid them out for drying. According to her, after the chilies have dried she would pound them to make red chili powder that she sold to a shopkeeper. People had laid out nets and fishing hooks so that they could catch fish. In short, all activity was geared to gaining food and/or a meager livelihood.

11727781_1098857100144407_1801693026_o

11733817_1098857790144338_320328158_o

The lack of our government in reach to the poorest, most needy was abysmally clear. People would ask us anxiously if there was any news of the flood-waters? How much water was India going to release into our rivers? Has the deal between Nawaz Sharif with Moodi been finalized? The government seems totally ignorant of the daily anxiety of the riverine people. During the March flooding no news media reported on the floods. The government did not make any statement on the destruction in the communities. Farmers lost the wheat harvest which is their food security through the year. Such is the heartlessness of our government.

So then, who is this government for? The rich and the powerful? Those who already have plenty? Those who own vast tracks of land? Those who live in cemented well constructed houses? Those who have so much food in their homes that they don’t even know the cost of wheat flour?

Dilemma of the amended seed act

AZRA TALAT SAYEED

THE Senate Standing Committee on National Food Security and Research had approved the Seed (Amendment) Bill 2014 last month. And there are reports that the Senate will be meeting shortly to pass it.

However, is it constitutionally possible that the Seed (Amendment) Bill 2014 can be enacted? According to Sindh Secretariat’s legislation director, no resolution from the Sindh Assembly has been passed that would allow the proposed bill to be amended by the National Assembly. As far as it is known, Khyber Pakhtunkwa, Punjab and Balochistan have also not passed any such resolution.

Since the 18th amendment, agriculture has been a provincial subject. It is clear that without such resolutions from the four provincial assemblies, the Seed (Amendment) Bill 2014 cannot be passed by the National Assembly. If the bill is passed, it will be open to legal challenges.

For the activists who are opposing the proposed bill, the future course of action will be to challenge the bill through the legislative process. Another pending bill concerns plant breeders’ rights. In Pakistan, the crux of the new seed legislation is basically to grant intellectual property protection to plant breeders and allow the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) varieties.

Critiques against the pending legislations range from the seed being considered ‘private property’ of the intellectual property right holders to the hazardous impact and environmental pollution from genetically modified plants and animals.

The pro-GMO lobby, which mostly springs from US-trained research institutions, has also provided many reasons for the legal recognition of genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops. These will, of course, in time also include GE animals.

The crux of the new seed legislation is basically to grant intellectual property protection to plant breeders and to allow the introduction of genetically engineered varieties
Academic institutions and the private sector, especially the agro-chemical and the biotechnology sectors, have consistently claimed that GM technologies are needed to meet the food needs of the rapidly growing global population.

According to them, genetic engineering will also be able to address malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. And of course, the privatisation debate consistently promises prosperity and profits by the adoption of not only genetic engineering but all corporate agriculture interventions, including GE technologies and automated devices for higher productivity and for fighting climate change.

All of these claims are consistently challenged by environmentalists, development activists, scientists, and most importantly, small and landless farmers.

For those who oppose privatisation and free-market economies, the critical problem is not of science but the capitalist paradigm that is pushing all inventions and innovations for the sake of profit-accumulation.

Science for knowledge and science in the service of the people are not the beacons that are held in our universities or other seats of learning. Therefore, for such a lobby, it is difficult to believe the ‘prosperity’ mantra that the mainstream universities and academia are articulating.

The scepticism is valid when considering the debacle of the green revolution policies in the 1960s, the ensuing pauperisation of small and landless farmers worldwide, and its debilitating impact on the environment, loss of fertility of agricultural land, widespread extinction of animal and plant species, and rising hunger and disease.

The highly expensive agriculture technologies only push the small and marginalised producers more into debt, even though they are often orchestrated for their ability to bring prosperity to the poor. For this, the government policies are often ‘tuned’ to meet the demands of transnational corporations that will earn millions of dollars from capturing new agriculture markets.

For instance, a US Department of Agriculture supported institution — Information Systems for Biotechnology — recently published research on GM beta-carotene-enriched corn for poultry feed. For farmers in Pakistan, such feed, whether efficacious or not, is far too expensive and ends up only in decreasing their incomes.

Farmers in Pakistan and other agrarian economies are contesting GM technologies on various grounds.

First, the seeds come from genetic material that is the collective property of farmers across the world. Corporations have no right to access and use the genetic material that is not theirs.

Second, these technologies are extremely dangerous to the environment. Genetic science, especially in agriculture, is a major source of environmental pollution which could jeopardise many ecosystems that are critical for maintaining life on our beleaguered planet.

Third, these technologies are and will only further increase the pauperisation of our small and landless farmers. The reasons are the very high cost of production and privatisation, as well as the deregulation and trade liberalisation policies that are being pushed on millions of farming communities across the world.

The writer is a social activist working with small and landless farmers

Published in Dawn, Economic & Business ,July 13th, 2015

http://www.dawn.com/news/1194012/dilemma-of-the-amended-seed-act

Letter to Chairman Senate of Pakistan Against Seed (Amendment) Bill 2014

Honorable Mr. Mian Raza Rabbani
Chairman, Senate of Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan

July 1, 2015

Subject: Seed (Amendment) Bill, 2014

Respected Sir:

As you are aware, the Seed (Amendment) Act, 2014 was approved in the National Assembly on March 16, 2015.

As the newly appointed Chairman, Senate, this is to draw your attention to the genuine concerns of both farmers and ordinary citizens on the proposed changes in the existing Seed Act, 1976.

You may recall that the Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek (PKMT) has already sent you a letter on March 30, 2015 highlighting the likely ill-effects and un-democratic process of passing this Act. Therein, we had requested your kind attention into this important matter. It is very un-fortunate that the Senate Standing committee has approved of this proposed Act. We have apprehensions about the Senate also approving the same very soon.

We want to once again bring to your kind attention that if this Act will be passed by the Senate of Pakistan, it will be un-constitutional since the claim that a “resolution had been passed from each provincial assembly through which provinces had granted National Assembly to do the legislation in this subject matter”. The so-called resolution has been passed since Agriculture is a provincial subject after the 18th Amendment.

Mr. Chairman, please note that we had inquired from Sindh Assembly Secretariat and found that that no such resolution had been passed by the Sindh Assembly. The Director of the Legislation Department of Sindh Assembly confirmed to us when we visited him on June 29, 2015 that the Sindh Assembly did not pass any resolution in this matter.

In the light of the above mentioned argument, as a veteran legislator and constitutional expert and furthermore as someone who pioneered the 18thAmendment, we hope that you will urgently scrutinise this matter. We urge your personal interest since you are known as the real fighter for provincial autonomy.

Mr. Chairman, please also find attached the letter we sent you on March 30, 2015 in which many farmers organizations and social movements in the country had pointed out many social, technical and scientific issues, which compel us to oppose this Act. Since those issues makes it anti-farmer, anti-people and anti-Pakistan. A law on agriculture must not allow multinational corporations to capture our food and agriculture system.

We, urge you once again that in the higher interest of Pakistan this Act should not be passed.

With kind regards,

Wali Haider
Secretary
Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek (PKMT)
A-1 first floor, Block-2,
Gulshan-e-Iqbal Karachi

Cotton growers ‘ woes traced to’ secret agreement’ on GM seeds

JAMAL SHAHID

ISLAMABAD: Cotton growers’ current woes with the genetically modified (GM) Bt seeds have been traced to an agreement that a national research institute signed with a multinational biotech seed producing company in 2006 over the head of Pakistan government, according to knowledgeable sources.

“Dr Yousaf Zafar, the then director of the National Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), signed the agreement with the US-based Monsanto multinational, keeping the ministries of foreign affairs, agriculture and environment and even the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in the dark,” said a senior official of the Pakistan Agriculture and Research Council (PARC).

Under the agreement, NIBGE provided seven indigenously developed cotton seed varieties to Monsanto which inserted Bt toxin into them to kill selective pests, such as bollworms. But their trial tests were run in the USA and then shipped back to Pakistan in 2011 and introduced commercially, even though the Plant Quarantine Act 1976 prohibits import of cotton seed, especially from America.

“Since these genetically modified varieties had not been tested in local environment, they bore no guarantee that they will be disease free and not harm the environment and human health in Pakistan,” said the official.

Director General, Pakistan Environment Protection Agency, Dr Muhammad Khurshid, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned him that the GM seed could be used as ‘a biological weapon’ against Pakistan’s strategic cash crop.

Many agriculture scientists contacted by Dawn were unaware of the existence of the agreement. Some described the seven GM varieties introduced in Pakistan as obsolete by now.

Four out of the seven modified indigenous cotton seed varieties – NIBGE-160, NIBGE-253, NIBGE-758 and NIBGE-4 – had not even been registered with Federal Seed Certification, and other bodies, as required under the Seed Act. Their introduction also violated the Pakistan Seed Act 1976 and the National Bio-safety Rules 2005.

Agriculture experts allege that the agreement “favoured the multinational company more than Pakistan and its farmers”. They quote clause 1.12 of the agreement that gave Monsanto the monopoly right to prepare genetically modified seeds for Pakistan.

This means local farmers not only have to purchase GM cotton seeds from the foreign company but also buy the pesticides that it alone produces, they say.

Worst, the foreign company clearly does not guarantee the success of the genetically engineered seed introduced in Pakistan.

“D&PL (Monsanto) shall not incur any liability for any act or failure to act by employees of NIBGE as a result of the performance of activities pursuant to this Agreement. NIBGE shall not incur any liability for any act or failure to act by employees of D&PL as a result of the performance of activities pursuant to this Agreement,” reads clause 1.14 of the agreement.

Dr Shahid Mansoor, the present director of NIBGE, however, defends the agreement. “Decisions taken in the past were in the national interest, keeping in view the problems of the third world countries and challenges of food security in the future,” he told Dawn.

PAEC’s Director, Agri and Biotech, Dr Nayyer Iqbal, though thinks the agreement should stand null and void after its three-year life.

However, he did not consider it a secret agreement. “It was signed to conduct experiments, which organisations often do and engaging other government offices is not necessary,” he said.

Critics of the agreement and the GM technology claim that cotton production has decreased since the introduction of Bt seeds and use of pesticides has increased. Cotton growers complain about new pests such as dusky bug and the red bugs that have emerged after Bt cotton seed arrived.

Supporters of the GM technology however claim that cotton production has decreased because farmers have switched to growing sugarcane and setting up sugar factories. They disagree that use of pesticides has increased. In any case, they argue, technology will find newer ways to fight pests.

Cotton is Pakistan’s strategic crop and back bone of economy which contribute 12 percent to GDP and engages more than 40 percent work force.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1192649/cotton-growers-woes-traced-to-secret-agreement-on-gm-seeds

The Myth of GM Technologies

In the past month, the Senate Standing Committee on National Food Security and Research approved the Seed (Amendment) Bill, 2014, Roots for Equity has been consistently opposing the proposed Bill. There is now news that the Senate will be meeting in the next week to pass it from the Senate as well.

The basis of genetic science is faulty! It is faulty because due scientific methodologies are not being followed that would allow an unbiased scientific opinion which would merit passing or rejecting genetically modified technologies.

The problem now is not of science but the capitalist paradigm that is pushing all inventions and innovations for the sake of profit-accumulation.  Science for Knowledge, and Science in the Service of People are not the beacons that are held in our universities or other seats of learning.

On the other hand, the suffering of the poor and the downtrodden are used as marketable slogans so that these very expensive, intellectual property driven technologies are forced down the throat of our governments (though really it is not so difficult to force it down . . .  as corruption is rife in government circles) and government policies are ‘tuned’ to meet the demands of the transnational corporations that will earn millions of dollars from capturing new markets, especially agriculture markets.

Recently, studies have been propagated which highlight the use of genetically modified (GM) beta-carotene-enriched corn in poultry feed. Also, a GM wheat was also under trial. The GMO wheat was engineered with synthetic genes to mimic an aphid distress signal that was supposed to repel certain pests called aphid pests.

Both have been critiqued for various reasons. We will not discuss the scientific reasons given for their failure here, as these have been well written and we are posting them on our blog.

However, we would like to highlight other issues based on which farmers from Pakistan are contesting GM technologies.

First, the seeds are using genetic material that is the collective property of farmers across the world. Today, these huge profit-driven corporations have no right to access and use the genetic material that is not theirs.

Second, these technologies are extremely dangerous to the environment. The climate chaos (that appeared as a killer heat wave and took the lives of more than 1200 people in a matter of 3-4 days in Karachi, Pakistan) is a result of the industrial mode of production in the past 150 years or so. Genetic science especially in agriculture is a major source of environmental pollution which could unleash many form of instability in the environment jeopardizing not only the lives of millions of human-beings but many ecosystems that are critical for maintaining life on our beleaguered planet.

Third, these technologies are and will further only increase the pauperization of our small and landless farmers. There are daily reports of farmers across the world of committing suicide. The reason is only the very high cost of production and privatization, deregulation and trade liberalization policies being brutally pushed on millions of farming communities across the world. The ever-rising cost of agricultural inputs, land grabbing, mechanization and now escalating automation in agricultural production is one over-whelming reason for farmers not being able to eke out a living and suffering from malnourishment and hunger.

If we add the impact of new technologies such as hybrid and genetically modified seeds in this mix of anti-farmer policies it is no wonder that farmers have clearly refused to accept genetically modified seeds and crops as an answer to world hunger, prosperity and ludicrously climate change! There is no doubt that genetically modified sees are just the oppose.

GM beta-carotene corn: Who benefits?

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16211-gm-beta-carotene-corn-who-benefits

Rothamsted’s GMO aphid-repellent wheat trial a £1 million failure

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16264-rothamsted-s-gmo-aphid-repellent-wheat-trial-a-1-million-failure

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16264-rothamsted-s-gmo-aphid-repellent-wheat-trial-a-1-million-failure