GM Crops a Trojan Horse

Few years back while visiting a village near Talwandi Sabo, district Mansa, the cotton belt of Punjab to study debt issues of farmers, I had the first realization of after effects of the much touted Green revolution. Visiting a household, the Punjabi warmth of welcoming us was not amiss but we really had to wait for the requested glass of water. It never came for good few minutes. Being very thirsty and at the expense of perhaps being rude to our hosts, I yet again gathered the courage to request for a glass of water. The hosts acknowledged again but it was never served. Post our discussions, we got up and I decided not to further press for it thinking in active social life one should never be too sensitive to these gestures. Our bike would have just travelled a few meters that a young boy called us to stop, he was running towards us with few plastic glasses and a jug of water. As embarrassed I was seeing this visual and before could ask, he himself went breathless to explain. “Our village has just two RO Water plants, one has not been working for few weeks and other had a long que so apologies, it took so much of time. I nonchalantly said, “never mind why did you bother, we could have had what you had at home”. His answer stunned me so much so that this perhaps would remain with me throughout my life. He responded, “the water at home is not fit for drinking”. “We have seen two deaths in our extended family from Cancer and even now we have others in the family diagnosed with it”. "We could never had allowed you to drink this water, after all you are, our guests”. Once done, he just ran back as swiftly as he came and needless to say, I was for loss of words then and go numb even today on recollecting this experience.

It was only later I got to know about “ Bathinda Bikaner Express”, a train which ferries numberless cancer patients from districts of Faridkot, Moga, Ferozpur, Sangrur Bathinda and Mansa for cheap treatment to Bikaner taking the infamous name of  being called as the “Cancer express”.

The advent of Bt Cotton in this Malwa region sold with promises to double the yield bringing opulence to the farmers, infact had a far more disastrous consequence on both the farm economics, triggering a cycle of debts and non payment of dues resulting in the highest gross average of suicides in the region, and on farmers health through severe “toxicity” by water contamination. Bt Cotton which hitherto claimed to be pest resistant instead had to be supported with excessive use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. An unregulated and high use of which has contaminated not only the fields but also the water tables in and around of its use making the water highly toxic. A survey done in the following year on Water Toxicity in Punjab, had found Lead, Arsenic, Aluminium, Mercury, Nickel, Thallium, Barium etc with women and children most vulnerable with serious health hazards linked to reproductive health, birth defects in children, premature deliveries of babies and reduced sperm count in men. There is hardly any village in this region which does not know or has not reported death from Cancer.

A price of “Green Revolution” which even the generation which are yet to be born perhaps would pay for the follies for introducing “technology led farming” without any regard to its consequence. With 325,000 farmer suicides in “Cotton” belts across the country including in Vidarbha, Punjab, Telangana, the experience of Bt Cotton and the myth of GM Crops has been exposed fully, with no reduction in farm crisis and farmer suicides, its quite evident that only the MNC Seed Manufacturers and Global Chemical Companies which have solely profited from this disaster.

The lessons yet are not learnt. It is widely been reported that the NDA government is now planning to introduce GMO in our Food crops, with GM Mustard perhaps to be approved by this incoming Rabi season. It is very important to understand in the background of our experiences with Bt Cotton, a cash crop and havoc it has played and needless to bring to the fore, the impact it might have now on our Food Crops.

This genetically modified, hybrid mustard, Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) has been developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) of the Delhi University and funded by NDDB (National Dairy Development Board) and contains three alien bacterial genes, namely bar, barstar and barnase, which are to induce male sterility in the plant and later to restore fertility, in addition to a third gene that is a marker gene which also makes the plant herbicide tolerant. Numerous independent studies, a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) of scientists, appointed by the Supreme Court and Standing Parliamentary Committees have expressly recommended ‘not to” introduce ‘Herbicide Tolerant” crops in India and specifically for crops which have its “Centre of diversity” in India.

Indian Mustard (from Rape Seed Mustard Family) has more than 65 different varieties and indeed has the centre of diversity for India. We have the 3^rd largest Mustard production behind China and Canada. Accounting for nearly one third of the oil produced in India and grown majorly in Rajasthan accounting for over all production at 48.12%, Madhya Pradesh with 11.31% and Haryana with 11.06%, these states together hold 70% of the over all production in million tons besides other states of West Bengal, Gujarat, Assam and Uttar Pradesh. It is the major source of income especially to the small and marginal farmers of rain fed areas, predominantly grown in resource scare regions, it is a vital livelihood source and income security of millions of farmers in these regions. Even the growth rates in yields (Irrigated) have been impressive from 3.68 quintals pa in 1950-51 to 12.62 pa quintals in 2012-13, with Gujarat recording 16.95 pa quintals in the same corresponding period.

The argument that the tonnages are not increasing and “productivity yields” have not matured sufficiently to reduce the “Import Bill” of cooking oils, the answers to this absurd logic is not questioning the sufficiency of the Indian farmers but bad economics of the politicians and the babu’s who have collectively done nothing to focus on improving farmer remunerations, increase of interventions which aid the farm crop economics, effective linkages to the markets and suitable investments in infrastructure for value addition nearest to the point of production to tide this crisis. The reduction in Import duties at at one point in time was brought down from 300% to absolute 0% and then the babu’s went around castigating the farmers that the productivity is low and imports are needed..!!

Even a cursory look at the annual growth rate of Mustard demolishes this absurd argument. The “Yield” of Indian variety of both “Desi” and “Desi Hyrbid” Mustard on an average is 3.9% as seen in previous corresponding years in comparison to the “Yields” of Bt Cotton which was promised at 7% but is only at an abysmal low of 2.8% within the same comparable year.

Such is the impact of high yielding technologies of GMO Crops which is nothing but an attempt to take over the food sovereignty of the country like India and ensure it is ever dependent on costly technologies governed by global multinational players, all in the name of “progressing with the science”. By pushing this GM Mustard through a Public sector entity, companies and corporations such as Monsanto are testing the acceptability of introduction of GM in our food crops. It is widely known that there is a GM Maize, GM Corn, GM Rice, GM Wheat and other crops in the pipeline which perhaps be pushed should this GM Mustard is considered for approvals.

It is very clear that GM Mustard is used as a “Trojan Horse” as was used by the Greeks to enter the city of Troy, to create a market dominance at expense of our food security, health concerns and issues notwithstanding. This government which has not pull any stops in imbibing “best practices” of the west should also take heed to the fact as to why almost the entire European Union has banned GMO’s in their country and why Russia has announced that it shall “emerge” as the global provider of organic produce in the world, converting almost all of its crop production as “Pesticides and Chemicals Free Farming” in next three decades.

In summary it is the absence of better agro-climatic and agro-ecology practices and various crop support programs for small and marginal farmers and issues of health which need a comprehsnsive attention. If these initiatives are focussed and channelled suitably as both a matter of policy and strong implementation on the ground the country can reap more dividends then exposing and pledging our farmers, their livelihoods and food security to global seed and chemical manufacturers by brining in an unnecessary technology which is clearly not needed for out ecological temperament in form of GMO Crops.  On issues of Health, clearly “none” is willing to have “poisoned” GMO crops on their food plates.

(Brief of the lecture given at Mewar University, on 30th July, 2015)

Abhishek Joshi

(Author is a New Delhi based, Public Policy and Political Analyst)

"Strong Objection to GM Mustard" - Letter to Sh. Prakash Javadekar

To:

Shri Prakash Javadekar,                                                                                               3^rd February, 2016

Minister for Environment, Forests & Climate Change,

Government of India,

New Delhi

Dear Shri Prakash Javadekar Ji,

Sub: Strong objection against, and deep concerns with regard to the secretive and hurried processing of GM mustard “environmental release” application and possible approval of GM mustard

From the media reports it has been brought to our notice that Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change is convening a meeting on February 5^th 2016 for considering the commercial approval and cultivation of its transgenic mustard hybrid called DMH11. This genetically modified, hybrid mustard, Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) has been developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP) of the Delhi University and though funded initially by NDDB (National Dairy Development Board) reports now confirm that even NDDB seems to have distanced itself from this initiative. We understand that this GM mustard contains three alien bacterial genes, namely bar, barstar and barnase, which are to induce male sterility in the plant and later to restore fertility, in addition to a third gene that is a marker gene which also makes the plant herbicide tolerant. There are numerous problems  associated with this GM crop on counts of safety of technology, the secrecy and lack of transparency in decision-making, and the risks involved on account of human health, environmental safety and farmer livelihoods. Further, this GM mustard has been developed using Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), which induces male sterility in the plant. Indian laws like the PPVFRA (Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act) disallow GURT.

While the genetic modification is ostensibly to increase productivity by creating a hybrid, it is worth noting that non-GM hybrids exist in the market; more importantly, other agronomy based practices exist to improve yields significantly and there is no need to resort to such a risky and irreversible option. Therefore, without having a need for such a transgenic option, we are trying to unleash an unaccountable and irreversible experiment on the country.

The use of a herbicide tolerant gene as a marker potentially allows for the back door entry of herbicide tolerant crops in India.  A Technical Expert Committee (TEC) of scientists, appointed by the Supreme Court, had expressly recommended not to introduce HT crops in India. Mustard, as you are aware, is a very significant oil seed, food and forage crop. It forms an important source of income for farmers through food and also through honey, an important secondary source of income. With the introduction of GM mustard, honey production and bee populations themselves will be jeopardized.

India is the centre of diversity for mustard and as you aware has immense use even in Ayurveda. 

The Parliamentary Standing Committee and the Supreme Court-appointed TEC had specified that no genetic modification should be allowed in the case of such plants, to prevent contamination of the germplasm and gene pool. Introduction of GM mustard in villages will certainly lead to contamination of non-modified mustard varieties thereby harming the vast diversity that is our food insurance.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole process with regard to GM mustard biosafety data, field trials and the regulatory approvals is the shroud of secrecy around it. Orders from the Supreme Court (in relation to the PIL related to GM crops) have clearly mandated that all biosafety data of GM crops should be pro-actively shared in the public domain. However, the regulatory process, instead of becoming more transparent, has been made completely opaque with biosafety data being refused even in response to RTI queries. This raises the important question about the regulatory process itself, about its integrity, and in is solely seen serving the interest of global seed and chemical manufacturers at expense of Indian ecology and farmers.

It is also seen that the Supreme Court has just heard a Contempt Petition for the regulators violating some basic Orders of the court in the past related to scientific, bio-safe, transparent and independent regulation, and notices have been served to the Government regulators on the same. At such a juncture, it is indeed a matter of concern that the GEAC meeting is being scheduled on the 5^th of February, ignoring all developments.

NDA government has repeatedly asserted “Transparency & Accountability” as major “pivots” of its governance policy and these are ever seen to be grossly violated in letter and spirit. Not expanding the importance of “Contempt”, which the government seems to be taking casually and ignoring at its own peril, the permeation of vested interests driving these decisions and abject capitulation by the government to “serve” this interest is visibly alarming. The NDA regime is continuously seen making decisions which are Anti Farmer, Anti Poor and Anti Ecology and Environment and resultantly the image of government and the tall promises which seemingly follow, squarely appear shallow with no intention of holding them to see through the actual intent.

The Center’s insistence in pushing this decision shall be in defiance of wishes of states which don’t want GMO’s in general and this GM Mustard in particular. This also is a breach upon the “basic features” of the “Federal Structure” and is a departure from constitutional probity which this government has come to be identified with through several “unilateral” decisions, as was seen during the Land Acquisition Ordinance, sans applying any merit of wisdom on such sensitive issues.

We also would like to remind you that your party in your election manifesto mentioned that “GMO would not be allowed unless there has been a strenuous evaluation on the aspects which could be detrimental to the farmers, the community and more specifically to the environment and the ecology”. Needless to mention that the processing of this GM mustard application, conducted in such secrecy is neither responsible to science nor responsive to society.

Please also recall that the Prime Minister very recently announced in Sikkim a comprehensive initiative towards Organic Farming and called for an active governance and policy mechanism by all stakeholders to promote organic farm practices and called out this initiative as “The Sikkim Declaration”. As you know, organic farming prohibits the use of GMOs.

Given all the above, we urge you to kindly intervene in this matter, and ensure that the regulators do not proceed on this GM mustard commercialization application, especially given that lasting alternatives exist, for improving mustard yields.

Thank you,

KN Govindacharya

Abhishek Joshi

New Delhi

K.N.Govindacharya

kngovindacharya@yahoo.com

Twitter : @kgovindacharya

Abhishek Joshi

abhishek.ar.joshi@gmail.com

Twitter : @abhjoshi

All lost in Nairobi - India’s battle at WTO

“India is pushed back several steps, losing all gains built assiduously over the years, and in one stroke NDA has achieved what even previous governments could not by succumbing to the pressure of developed countries”.  This seemingly innocuous reaction from Kenya drew proportions back home when “India reflected its disappointment” in not able to seek the “reaffirmations” on the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) in the Nairobi Ministerial Declarations (NMD) at the recently concluded Tenth Ministerial Conference of the WTO, held in Nairobi, Kenya.

 The reaffirmations were to seek parity in trade anomalies specially addressing the challenges on protecting Agriculture Subsidies under the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) and initiatives towards Public Stockholding Programs much needed to align India’s Food Security expectations. This has been in discussions since past few years and remained contentious between developed and developing (read emerging) economies. The latter bearing the effect on millions of poor ensuring their food security and the continuation of “Non-distorted trade subsidies” of the former being dismissive of fair demands including of India since past 14 years. India now lands severely compromising millions of livelihoods dependent on Agriculture, exposing them bare open to the incoming onslaught of the “developed countries” with this failure to ably intervene in Nairobi.

 The NMD discussed over an extended period of time initially saw groupings of African countries, India, China, Venezuela and South Africa to issue joint statements “reaffirming” their positions on Doha Development Declarations and Decisions, backing with the firm intent and commitment” to give effect to them. However despite strong interventions being proposed by India, the “failure” to actually intervene even at the cost of “rejecting the draft” as done by then Minister of Commerce, Kamal Nath in 2004, where India minced no words in calling the proposed draft, “ Pro US and detrimental to the interest of farmers in developing countries”. However in the end the blocks of US and EU were successful in achieving what they never could from previous WTO Trade negotiations by burying Doha Development Agenda (DDA) forever in recent Ministerial Conference at Nairobi.

 There indeed was a concerted attempt by developed countries blaming India for the deadlock in negotiations as a built up to the Nairobi declaration. The intensive negotiations between the Member countries notwithstanding, NDA’s Commerce Minister denied the deadlock placing farmer’s interest first but the “pressure’ in retrospect of events seemingly worked on India.

 The Nairobi Ministerial Declaration in its present form only makes for a passing reference under Para’s 31 to 34 in “recognizing” and setting new “approaches to achieve meaningful outcomes, through multilateral negotiations”.  It further just ensures, “ a strong commitment” to advance negotiations, on the three pillars of agriculture, namely domestic support, market access and export competition, as well as non agriculture market access, services development, TRIPs and the rules”. It though surreally acknowledges that there was no attempt to bring in the “consensus” a severe departure from the Doha rounds as key principle of trade negotiations.

The implications of now having buried the Doha Agenda Framework of 2001 and its non inclusion in the Nairobi Declaration of 2015, the developing countries including India collectively have lost their voice in negotiating any opportunity on WTO trade platforms for securing approvals to its subsidy based programs and stock holding of food grains under welfare interventions. Even despite not breaching the 10% limits on food stockholding programs and domestic agriculture support through subjugation of the principles, a one key element which has carried over our interests and hopes in negotiating a fair trade term on these aspects since past several decades.

The small land holdings of our farmers, subsistence of poor dependent upon these subsidies would now be stringently measured. India could even loose the right to subjectively intervene in Free Trade Agreements (FTA’s) which shall be thrusted creating an asymmetry of trade negotiating boundaries with the sole focus on Trade Facilitation Agreements (TFA’s) opening up the emerging “developing” markets and in turn exposing even our “small marginal farmers with limited landholdings” to the gyrations of global trade governance dynamics.

 The introduction of “New issues” or “Singapore issues carried over from Cancun Ministerial Conference 2003 related to Investment, Competition, Government Procurement and Market Access through interlinked E-Commerce at 10th Ministerial at Nairobi further limits the participation by countries like India in raising & resolving trade blocks and Doha issues in future. The acceptance of these “new issues” sooner would compel us to move into an un-sheltered territory where over arching imposing demands like pressing for the principle of “national treatment” by developed countries in name of trade balance would prevail at the cost of domestic protection polices, cheaper imports, market interventions for subsidized agriculture commodities by global players at expense of needed encouragement of competent local policies fostering trade competitiveness, retaining our food sustainability and commercial safeguards, which is a pivot focal of emerging economy like India

 India now having “caved in” is isolated with no permanent solution on public stock holding issue and is left only with a “work program” to remain perpetually in “draft stages” under “bilateral negotiations” on the (SSM) Special Safeguard Mechanisms.

The Modi government now bears the weight of having missed on an opportunity pushing India back to from where it started and with an equally missing forlorn equitable explanation on what made it succumb to the pressure to the groupings of US, EU and Developed country trade blocks. This severely compromises protection measures & interests of our farmers, fails to ensure adequate food security for our poor and most importantly has landed squarely on its face sacrificing our trade sovereignty at Nairobi.

Abhishek Joshi

(The writer is New Delhi-based Rural Researcher and Policy analyst)

"Business at the Cost of Ecology" - The TSR Subramanian Committee Report

In nuances of political governance, the competitive zeal of governments are never always prejudiced to do better, they might be seen competing for worst as well. With NDA government completing one year of its ascent to power, the glaring example of this notion rests with its Environment Minster, Mr. Prakash Javadekar who has outwitted his predecessor Veerappa Moily by miles and yet adding to the count of environmental clearances, having cleared more than 650 projects in 7 months by his own admission.

 The TSR Subramanian High Level Committee (HLC) set up purportedly, without any cabinet mandate by Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) was to align green laws at par to afford a “Single Window Clearance” system, even for sensitive environment clearances. Never to mind to check the track record of severe deviations on compliances and flouting of existential laws already, the HLC immediately got down to review the Laws, notably, The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The HLC placed it recommendations in November 2014.

 The brief of HLC one would have assumed was to de-bottleneck the policy congestion for the Industry, setting up guidelines with significant safeguards for ecology and environment, mandated under the MoEF&CC. Instead, the committee recommendations, now almost accepted by the NDA government, have severely diluted the environmental laws, edging them closer from the origin of the Ministry’s mandate from “Protection of Environment” to solely on “Ease of Doing Business” in India.

 Besides recommending subsuming various laws into a single over arching law, the Environment Law Management Act (ELMA), it suggests to creates two bodies at both, Central; National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) and State level; State Environment Management Authority (SEMA) to “fast track” clearances for investments in development projects. Based on the principle of “Utmost good faith”, it further plans to do away the monitoring functions of Central & State Pollution Boards. Such is the reposed faith that it does not define “severe” penalties and “financial burden” to be levied in case of any attempt found flouting the environment protection rules by applicants..!

 The primary contentious recommendation though of the HLC is to dispense with Public Consultation and Public Hearings for “development” projects and Arrogation of powers of both legislation and an Appellate tribunal (dispensing with National Green Tribunal) under ELMA,   with no recourse to any court of law, even on “merit”, under the proposal.

 The committee recommends that dispensing hearings should be “modified” which shall pave way for faster clearances on the projects, for specific areas including amending the Forest (Conversation) and Wild Life Protection Act “suitably” devolving the powers of “Gram Sabha”, presently mandatory for project approvals under Social & Environmental Impact Assessments (S&EIA) for protected areas. The latter to add, has also been dispensed with under the proposed new law.

 It further goes on to request to define the “Forest” at the earliest, calling summarily by itself the areas with less than 70% of canopy covers as “treelands”, even if classified as and under  “protected areas”. This essentially means that the vast large patches spread across the country, which have seen enormous environmental and climatic degradation on the canopy cover, would immediately be available for “mega mining, industrial and infrastructural projects” and states no longer shall be able to define or advise any “Go-No Go areas to the centre.

 The threat of acceptance of this suggestion which came under severe criticism by several environmentalist and activists on major catastrophic impact on the environment was not lost when Mr. Javadekar in a written submission on the floor of parliament in April mentioned that 36,000 hectare of forest land has already been diverted for some 784 projects, ostensibly diluting the Forest Laws. This suggestion would further aid the executive policy decisions in diverting more forest land sans any accountability in name of development.

 Under Mr. Javadekar the MoEF&CC now equally is in direct confrontation with its own government Ministry, Ministry of Tribal Affairs and might also find itself coming under the judicial scrutiny (hence the attempt to enact the ELM Act) of the Courts of the country. Very specifically, the Supreme Court which has repeatedly under pain has led to protect the indigenous rights of the tribal’s to forest land, sustainability of livelihood from forest produce and exploitation of its natural resources against any or either move of industrialisation.

 The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has strongly refuted the draft “revised” guidelines on compliances meant for The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 for clearances of projects, calling it an overreach of MoE’s policy recommendation into its turfs. It has indicated in no uncertain terms that it shall continue to contest any dilutions so recommended, though for how long, is yet to be seen.

Notwithstanding the domestic blunt side, India shall also be flouting the 1992, “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” with impunity which amongst the major principles articulates, Public Participation across all levels of citizenry including providing access to “all relevant information” as necessary, involvement at all stages of decision making with access to judicial and administrative proceedings and measures for redressing grievances. All but few recommendations of HLC and MoEF’s grandstanding of policy decisions relaxing “environmentally sensitive green norms” could afford to expose itself to “litmus test” of these standards.

 No surprises that on eve of completion of 1^st year, the “achievement report” released by MoEF&CC, called “Towards Transparency & Good Governance” in May recently, it critically misses much mention on further strengthening the guidelines on “Protection of Environment” but instead claims “Changing many rules for the protection of environment” and aligning the policy implementation and homogeneity of laws, and “clearances” of projects, as its sole single policy achievement.

Noted Canadian Environmentalist David Suzuki through his famous “Water Lilly” example explained the concept of exponential environmental destruction. He brought forth hat the damage to the eco system is never progressively linear, can’t be checked one at a time and hence difficult to monitor; and that, any system could perhaps be assaulted from thousand sources making it appear living one day and be dead the next.

 The MoEF&CC must know that relaxation of norms to only appear as “Pro Industry” by opening up of sensitive eco pockets hitherto out of bounds and yet protected would only lead to an irreversible destruction which no afforestation policy and the penalties could recover. Instead it must take a “green leaf” from Suzuki’s prudent advice and ideally strengthen the environmental governance avenues bringing robust institutional policy guidelines and strict compliance to existential laws to arrest the climatic decline and by instilling sufficient safeguards for the environment.

 The indulgence hence for sake of posterity, is quite "naturally” to ask, “On the swinging beam of Capital and Profits on one side and Ecological and Environmental Protection Charter on the other - Which side are you on Mr. Javadekar”..?

 

 

 Abhishek Joshi

(Author is a New Delhi based Policy Analyst)

My submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Land Acquisition Bill (LARR) 23rd June, New Delhi

Submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on LARR, 23^rd June, New Delhi

 

 

On Quantum of Land & Food Security:

 

1. As submitted earlier, we demand a white paper on over all utilization of land since Independence resting with both Central and State Government, PSU’s, State Undertakings Public Private Organization (under PPP) and Government funded autonomous bodies which have been allotted but have not been utilized for allotted objectives, together with the facts and ownership pattern to assess; if any land has been diverted for different purposes other than allotted, the present ownership pattern and status of updated land records across states to afford the sum total of the over land available prior any further land acquisition.
2. We also demand clarity on how much of wasteland is available. The mention of “survey” to be done is misleading since the Rural Development Ministry under the department of land resources until few years back has identified roughly around 43.8 Lakh Mn Hectare Wasteland through both on the ground and satellite surveys. The report can be seen from “Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Land Resources web site.
3. The government needs to come clean on its intentions on “purported lip service to the survey” and clarify the points.
4. We also demand that in interest of Food Security, the government clarifies under the Act that no Multi crop land shall be acquired. The government’s contention is misleading when it says that “minimum” land shall be acquired. Who defines Minimum, Who justifies Minimum, What shall constitute Minimum is not clear in the bill and hence needs to be clarified.
5. In case of Industrial Corridor, 1 km of land is proposed to be acquired either side. This is subjective and the LARR Act 2015 provides not safeguards that Multi Crop land shall not be acquired. This is not acceptable.
6. A “Draft National Land Reforms Policy” was tabled in July 2013. We demand that the Land Policy, amongst looking at the factors of providing land to the landless also details a framework, together with the white paper on Land Utilization Aspects – bringing up a comprehensive Land Policy.
7. It must state the plans for next 15 years on how much of land corpus is to be made available for Housing, Infra Projects, Social and Civic Development, Agriculture etc detail plans for protecting the Agro Climatic and Ecology Sensitive Zones, which have  been plundered in name of development.

 

On Definition of Categories:

 

1. The LARR Act 2015 has created five special categories which exempt consent as mandated under the LARR Act 2013 of 80% of land owners for Private projects and 70% for PPP Projects.
2. These categories are Defence, Rural Infrastructure, Affordable Housing, Industrial Corridor and Infrastructure projects including for PPP projects where government owns the land
3. All these categories in present form provide significant subjectivity to the definition and loopholes to allow private players to acquire land and even the LARR Act 2015 is silent on what role the government shall play
4. The term “where government owns the land” equally is misleading in the LARR Act 2015. Example is Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor which is process of acquiring land plans to create several zone wise organizations which shall acquire land, but shall be given out to private players in name of smart cities and infrastructure development, This is not acceptable.
5. We seek clarification on what are the definitions of these categories and demand that the LARR Act clearly states this definition including defining what projects and how many Industrial Corridors are planned at the earnest.
6. We also seek clarifications on definition of what shall constitute Rural & Urban Areas with respect to government notifications to the states to settle the issues around compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement policies
7. The government has also inserted “entity” changing the definition of private companies and it is again misleading on clarifications on what shall constitute the entities. We demand a clarity of this term as well in LARR Act 2015

 

On Consent:

 

1.      As per LARR Act 2013 consent was mandated from of 80% of land owners for Private projects and 70% for PPP Projects.

2.      We demand that this gets maintained. The provisio of “consent of Gram Sabha’s” is needed to define what development is needed suiting the local requirements sans any negative impact on the environment and ecology and imperative that participatory involvement in name of development, is not diluted.

3.      There seems to be an attempt to dilute the provisions under PESA (For Scheduled Areas V & VI) and Forest Dwellers Act and LARR Act 2015. We feel if not checked could be a precursor to take away the consent clause in name of Infrastructure projects from Gram Sabha’s which is not acceptable. The government needs to clarify that provisions of the LARR Act 2015 for Forests, Wildlife and Ecological Sensitive Areas shall not be under the preview of Land Act 2015, which is silent on these issues and we demand an insertion to safeguard any attempt to dilute the Forest Dwellers Right in this regard

 

On Social Impact Assessment :

 

1.      The governments attempt to “exempt” 5 subjective categories from SIA is not acceptable. Government’s contention that this slows down the speed of the project has not been proven either in parliamentary discussions, inter ministerial reports or have been brought in the public domain through any independent reports. The government’s contention is in fact hollow when recent RTI by the Finance Ministry has proven to the contrary where only 8% of the Projects were stalled for want of Land Acquisitions. The government is misleading the nation and this assertion if anything is to protect its own interest to dole out benefits to the corporate for speeding their acquisition for creation of realty land banks.

2.      The government brow beats for imbibing best practices of other nations, should know that all leading and developed nations deploy both EIA and SIA to assess the situations “prior” the “purchase” (not acquisition) of land for development.

3.      Even World Bank – for which the government is seen rationalising multiple laws and policies for “ease of doing business” in India, equally has a mandatory norm to conduct the SIA and EIA for its own funded projects, though the effects of even World Bank projects have resulted in more displacements world over as presented by an International Independent Report

4.      As per NSSO 70th report and State of Agriculture report 2013, it has been proven that the rural ecology sustains upwards of 48% of the people, directly or indirectly to both Farm and Non Farm activities. The SIA is needed since the “compensation” be awarded only to the owner with no impact study it shall never determine the (PAP) Project Affected People, specially the marginalised community which depend on land resources for their livelihood.

5.      We demand SIA needs to be maintained across all of these categories since it’s the core of R&R policies, creating an equality both in terms of protecting livelihood and also ensuring the marginalised are not pushed away to societal periphery.

 

On Compensation:

 

1.      We demand to define the formulae for compensation. The govt is saying that there shall be 4 times compensation to be provided to the farmers in case of compensation, which is misleading. The FM in his budget presentation while proposing the “Benami Transaction Bill” mentioned the severity of Black money in real estate transactions and also his acknowledgement of deemed revenue accrued to the government is less than the notified price of land transactions and evasion of stamp duty payments are rampant hiding the actual market value.

2.      The compensation so to be paid for by the collector (who under the LARR Act 2015) is the notifying authority shall calculate the average price of 3 years to arrive the notified value or circle rate prevalent if notified to award compensation. This shall leave the actual compensation closer to the circle rate or rate of registration as an average value instead of the market value, depriving the farmers of the actual price, which the government claims.

3.      We demand the formulae to inserted in the LARR Act clearly defining the “Compensation Formulae”

4.      The other aspect is “Land Use”. Once notified of the land use, the market forces tend to determine the value of land and the farmers can perhaps get more value then than notified land value, which is not declared at the time of acquisition. There are no provisions to claim the higher price on land use.

5.      We demand that the “Land Use” is suitably build up in the formulae for award of compensation and the compensation formulae for both Rural and Urban Areas is clearly notified.

6.      The mandatory employment for 1 person in the PAP category is also misleading. A farmer having given up his land would have no deep skills to afford the project unless he stands trained to run the activity. Hence even that one job having forgone his “asset” despite the compensation would be left to fend for him for want of any useful skill.

7.      We demand that “land for land” should be made available within the same region to ensure continuity of societal and cultural aspects

8.      If not, we demand wasteland is made available and sufficient grant pool – non financial rural and agri support with interest free loans are provided to develop the land

9.      We also demand the “farmer whose land is being acquired” is considered as a “vested party” in the acquisition process and is issued debentures or identified as a share holder to whom a dividend on year on year basis on determined value of land is being paid on Annual basis or from any profits which gets accrued from the project post implementation and commencement of operations.

10.  We though strongly recommend, that for effective balance, the land should never be acquired but to be taken on lease and lease value to be paid to the beneficiaries including the PAP on regular basis at annualized value to safeguard livelihood and sustainability

 

On R&R:

 

1. We demand a comprehensive white paper on the R&R settlement, award of compensation, Details on Project Affected People and their suitable settlement including compensation awarded, employment status of the PAP and any compensation in kind which has been awarded thus far since independence.
2. It is know that R&R record owing to project displacement is pathetic and there are still PAP which are struggling to be reinstated, resettled or to be rehabilitated including cases of award of compensation by respective governments, as long as 42 years
3. The SIA as stated earlier becomes the most important aspect to ascertain the impact for PAP and the subsequent R&R including award of compensation in this light.
4. A report “Displacement and Rehabilitation of People due to Development Projects” prepared by IIT Roorkee was tabled in Parliament, for consideration of Lok Sabha Secretariat and Member of Parliament in  December 2013.
5. The report clearly brought the effect of displacement on marginalized communities including SC, ST’s and OBC which were left displaced due to Mining, Dam, Industrial Projects and Acquisition of Land for Public Purpose
6. There has been no discussion thus far either in the parliament or between the parliamentary committees on the impact of such displacement and the policies thus so formulated carry no proof of concept to ensure the devastating aspects of this independent study and its results have been considered while proposing or implementing the LARR Act 2015.
7. Unless there’s a comprehensive and detailed guideline including wider discussions in the public domain and historical and legacy issues are settled, including for award of compensation we demand the provisions of this act is kept in abeyance for any land acquisition.
8. The LARR Act 2015 also has changed the classification of earlier purchases including denotifying by an amendment the land which has been acquired since 5 years and compensation not paid to be considered as acquired and not giving back the land in case of any development for period of 5 years.
9. There are 2 demands, we say, that all land acquisition which has happened prior to the notification of land and for which compensation has not been paid, the compensation formulae as to be defined in LARR Act 2015 should be under its preview on not basis the old Act,
10. Secondly, it is unacceptable that the government acquires land to protect a higher compensation on a future date and is tempted to create a land bank in name of compensation having being paid in a “registered account” but not paid to the beneficiaries including PAP. This is not acceptable.
11. If there is no use for the land over the 5 year period, the land should be turned back to the farmers from whom it was acquired with compound interest paid on deposit from date of acquisition notified on prevailing circle rate.

 

On Powers with Collector and Land Dispute Redressal Authority:

 

1. The draconian aspects of Land Act 1894 have been resurrected with the Collector becoming the “Mai Baap” again. These provisions for notification, acquisition, compensation, R&R policies and challenging the decision powers have been done away with the amendments to LARR Act 2013 in the present LARR Act 2015.
2. The powers to prosecute has also been subject to sanctions by the Gov which is against the principles of natural justice, access to judicial intervention and subjugation of fundamental rights as conformed in the constitution
3. The LDRA, though has been shifted to the districts, the pathetic state of both civil and criminal cases and the state of pending cases running in hundred lakhs in district courts is widely known, and having a authority only to deal with such situations will accentuate the situation and hamper the process of justice.
4. As been seen recently the sanctions for Macro corrupt acts by the previous government was not forthcoming and it was only when leaders of high political stature decided to challenge that a landmark judgement “Subramanian Swamy Vs Manmohan Singh” was delivered by Hon’ble SC by interventions of the court where permissions for sanctions were considered as deemed to be granted if not provided for in 6 months from the time of such an application.
5. The plight of a vested wrong in case of access to justice for small farmer or from marginalized community should be seen in the aspect of whether the situations be conducive for him to file, plead and contest the cases with LDRA and whether he/she will have the wherewithal both financially and morally to contest against the collector within the same district as “affected” under the patronage, of the government..?
6. The other aspect is for the “Collector” to have the sole powers to refer the matter to the LDRA once the application has been filed and for want of any response, the affected farmer can approach to the LDRA for seeking directions to the collector to make the reference..?
7. This is not acceptable. How can it be perceived that a small farmer shall persist to complaint about the collector, to the collector himself and equally shall prevail on the collector to both refer the matter to LDRA and also to award a judgement for the acquisition in his favour once assuming the LDRA has a favourable opinion to consider the case..?
8. We demand, this provision is to be done away with, and clarity in terms of processes to be followed including identifying Ex Officio’s members, such as Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly and Councils including members of Gram Sabha is part of the panel to adjudicate in the matters under LDRA.
9. We also demand that the “affected person” definition is clarified under the LARR Act 2015, to include not only the owner but “all concerned” drawing livelihood from the land to be acquired
10. We also demand that the provisions as of owner of the land to be extended and are as applicable to Project Affected People (PAP) who demand redressal of their complaints.
11. We also demand setting up of “local common judicial fund pool” for providing legal aid and access to assistance for farmers at district level.