I would like to share with you all the interview I had with
Devinder Sharma. According to the
Huffington Post,
“Sharma
is a distinguished food and trade policy analyst. An award-winning Indian
journalist, writer, thinker, and researcher well-known and respected for his
views on food and trade policy. Trained as an agricultural scientist (he holds
a Master’s in Plant Breeding & Genetics), Sharma has been with the Indian
Express, amongst the largest selling English language dailies in India. And
then quit active journalism to research on policy issues concerning sustainable
agriculture, biodiversity and intellectual property rights, environment and
development, food security and poverty, biotechnology and hunger, and the
implications of the free trade paradigm for developing countries.
In
his own unique way, he analyses the international developments with local
interpretation. Many regard him as singularly responsible for deciphering the
complex global treaties and agreements and what it means for the developing
countries in a simple and understandable manner.”
He keeps a fantastic blog called Ground Reality (http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/)
about the politics and economics of agriculture and hunger, usually within an
Indian context. He’s a prolific writer,
extremely articulate and intelligent, and it was another celebrity moment for
me in India. I tried to meet Devinder in Punjab, as he is currently based in the capital city of Chandigarh, but unfortunately, we missed each other. He was nice enough, however, to give me almost an hour of his personal time on a Saturday morning for a Skype interview :D Below is a transcript with my own emphasis added.
Can you tell me about
the role of the government in farming and food security in India?
Devinder Sharma: “The
government has the responsibility to ensure a) food self-sufficiency to the
country; b) food-security at the household level; and c) to ensure that the
agriculture is sustainable and economically viable.”
Do you think the
government has been successful given the inherent paradox of a large percentage
of India’s population still being hungry alongside rotting stockpiles?
Devinder Sharma: “That’s what democracy is all about – you shouldn’t see hungry people
in democracies. Democracy is all
over the world, not just in India, and there are still hunger problems. Hunger is not a priority of democracy; if you
look globally, how should it be going with such high level of wastage? E.g. in America, which champions itself as a
democracy but there are still hungry people and why should China see
diminishing hunger as a socialist country?
It really shows that there is something wrong with the way we have been
placing democracy as the answer. China
followed by Vietnam are both not democracies but hunger is reduced here. Something wrong with the design and
performance of democracy.”
What do you think
about the National Food Security Act of 2013?
According to some, “India has become the first nation in the world to
make access to food a legal right” in which self-reliance and food
self-sufficiency has allowed for sovereignty and also power in foreign policy
for India.
Devinder Sharma: “The
Food Security Act is most stupid. After
66 years of independence, we have brought in nothing different from what we
could have done in the very first year after independence. I think we have refugee sentiment. Whenever they come in, you feed them the
essentials. It’s okay to give 5 kilos to
the poor or 7 kilos to the ultra-poor but how long can they go on giving
this? If you want to feed a man for a
day, give him a fish; if you want to feed a man for a lifetime, teach him how
to fish. I am appalled at the lack
of common sense; the failure of the national advisory council to the government
that first started this idiotic bill.
And even civil society has done a shoddy job. This is not a way to end hunger.”
Should India continue
to amass stockpiles of food or improve waste management and distribution?
Devinder Sharma: “This
is one thing that should have been a hallmark of the Food Security Bill. Household food security needs. The bill should have cut across different
sectors to draw out a bigger picture that would have involved the other
framework. For one time, we could have
set the house in order. But that failed
miserably, so we will have to continue with the same model we’ve dealt
with. Instead, if we had a bill
designed to prioritize local, sustainable production that is also economically
viable (e.g. local procurement). We
have around 650,000 villages in this country and 550,000 villages produce food on
average – why is it that people can live in hunger in these same villages that
produce surplus? Why can’t we address
the hunger issue at the village, block/cluster, or district levels? This should have been taken care of and is
linked with many other policies (e.g. international trade policies) – if you
lower your duties to almost 0%, then cheap imports keep coming in and farmers
are driven out of agriculture. Then food
security becomes another problem. So I
think what should have been done: international trade policies, science and
technology policy, water resources policy, rural development policy, etc.
because agriculture (a combined program or act) should reflect all of these. The other issue is that India should keep on
stockpiling food, but it is very unfortunate that they are not distributing
food to the poor people. The difference
between America and India is that America also produces a lot of food but first
feeds its own population (350 million people) and its cats and dogs (168
million). And after, food is made
available for export. In India, it’s
the opposite, we don’t feed the population, what we collect is basically hunger
surplus, which is stockpiled and exported, a completely wrong policy.”
Agricultural
Development
Should agriculture
become larger scale? Are small farms
less productive, impractical for mechanization, etc.? Should we have fewer farmers with larger land
holdings (easier to mechanize) and capital/resource intensive (large loans,
fossil fuels) agriculture?
Devinder Sharma: “This is the modern economic thinking taught
by textbooks. The tragedy is that if you
look at India (1.25 billion people) and I remember in 1996, I was attending a
conference at the Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai and the Vice President
was affiliated with the World Bank and the CGIAR, which made the statement that
“the number of people that the World Bank estimates will be migrating to urban
areas from rural areas by 2005 would be equal to twice the combined population
of England, France and Germany (200 million).”
It was estimated that 400 million Indians would be migrating to cities. This wasn’t a warning, the World Bank was
actually telling us to do this. If you
read the 2008 World Development Report, it says we have to hasten the migration
process and transform into land rental scheme since small farmers are
unproductive. Farmers should be trained
as industrial workers. In the next
budget, I found that the last minister had free education for training institutes
across the country. So it’s clear that
we have been following the suggestions of the World Bank. Many people say that modern economics
lacks common sense – if 400 million people (more than the whole population of
the US) is to move towards urban areas, is this a sound model of
development? The cities are collapsing,
urbanization is both a push and pull effect (pushing farmers out of agriculture
as large-estate farmers replace small).
I don’t understand how economists say this is the answer to the crisis
– there is something really wrong with economic and politics. I find American economists arguing with me
that the U.S. and EU did it like this, thus, so should India. And then if you look at China, if China was
such a wonderful model, look at the land rights and acts: 250 bloody protests
happening and populations exploding in urban areas. And China is the biggest land grabber in the
world and bringing resources back to feed their population. This model of growth is totally nonsensical.”
Can you tell me about
the role and inherent paradox of mechanization in agricultural development? I.e. Mechanization is paradoxical because it
both displaces small farmers (adding to unemployment in the cities) and also
has the potential to reduce drudgery of agriculture, incentivizing youth to
farm. Appropriate versus modern
technology. Should widespread
mechanization be implemented and if so, how?
E.g. private companies or leasing agencies that contract/hire out
machines?
Devinder Sharma: “If
you leave mechanization to the corporations, they will destroy farming as well
as urban areas because they want to make more profits and see crop prices go
up; they’re not concerned with what happens to farmers. Tractor companies have to show rates of
growth, otherwise they get the boot.
Let’s not use this argument to support what you are saying. I don’t think mechanization is the solution
to what you are proposing. If you leave
a society on its own, it will never happen.
But the society and governance.
Mechanization has its role but let’s look at Punjab – when it introduced
machines during the Green Revolution, 30 HP tractors came into Punjab, which
came in a package with subsidies, credit, inputs etc. I remember that images of Punjabi farmers
with turbans on tractors became a symbol of progress. But today, that symbol of progress (tractor) has
become a symbol of suicide – a tractor needs 10 acres but the average is 2-3
acres, so it is a curse on farmers – they are drawn in by media and still want
to go into tractors. In the 1980s, I was
in Cambodia and I remember that the farmers had huge Russian tractors and I
came back and wrote that it needs is smaller tractors like India. But today, smaller tractors can be found in
Cambodia and now in Punjab 90-95 HP tractors in Punjab. Tractor companies are pushing this. The role of the civil society, government,
etc. come in to tell us that this is not the right model. So what we require is companies that rent
out machines. Now machines are
subsidized by the government but there are still expenses. He employs 80 drivers that are driving
tractors, combines etc. – why can’t we have this kind of system for every
farmer? Mechanization can be the
answer to help farmers make agriculture more profitable, viable, cooperative etc.
but not in the current debate. These
initiatives are not being pushed, but this could make the sale of tractors come
down.”
What do you think
about the role of agricultural cooperatives (e.g. for access to inputs, credit,
shared labor/inputs, and marketing) in Indian farming?
Devinder Sharma: “It’s all there and we know they can play a
role. Cooperatives could do the same
job [as the private hire companies] but the corporate/capitalistic model
discourages cooperatives and instead promotes private enterprise. So I don’t think they will thrive because the
government and MNCs are killing cooperatives. Even the dairy coop in Gujarat is suffering. Why can’t we encourage our own entrepreneurs
come up alone like in Fazula in Punjab?
So do you think that
increased private capital and entrepreneurship are a solution?
Devinder Sharma: “It is
not a solution but these are the options available so we must adopt whatever is
good for us. We cannot go blindly
forward, especially in Punjab where every second household has a tractor. We could call these cooperatives as an
enterprise to encourage youth (expensive machines could be shared rather than
bought by each and every one) – so you have to draw your own strategies and map
for this, rather than going by what the industry says.”
Do you think that post-harvest
processing and value addition will be able to help farmers overcome poverty?
Devinder Sharma: “Value
addition and post-harvest processing – I don’t think this can work or help the
farmers to overcome poverty. Those who
are into value addition will make profit.
If you look at this globally: there are two kinds of agriculture – the
kind of existed in developed countries (highly subsidized and mechanized and
productive) – if productivity was actually a sign of economic growth, then I
don’t think there would be much need for the subsidies. The high productivity in Europe in America –
this model is completely uneconomical, which is why the governments are
providing direct income subsidy support.
Other model is that which exists in India – subsistence farming. On one hand you have subsistence and the
other is subsidized. And have the
farmers benefited from value addition in the West? No.
Subsidies in America – studies show that if you remove these,
agriculture collapses. Value addition
only benefits middle men that make the money and farmers will stay poor. [But what about cooperatives doing value
addition themselves and direct self-marketing, eliminating the middle men?] This
cannot happen at a large-scale, maybe a farmer here and there. It has no happened in EU where farmers are
more alert, resourceful, educated, etc., so it is unlikely to happen in India.”
There are farmers in
Punjab who want to diversify and shift to organic, integrated farming, but
claim it’s not viable because of a lack of assured markets and lower
yields. So they feel that they’re not in
a position to farm organically. How do
we overcome these limitations?
Devinder Sharma: “I
don’t think marketing is important here.
Policy is important. We must understand that the Green Revolution
wouldn’t have succeeded if the government had not supported farmers with
subsidies and marketing (e.g. seed, machines, fertilizer, pesticides), the
GR would have collapsed. Again these
things always come with a package, which has been developed with Minimum
Support Price (MSP) and assured markets to cope with excess harvest (government
produces surplus so there is no glut in market) – then highly subsidized
technology (e.g. fertilizer, so it’s cheaper than organic systems and encourages
chemical farming). With this model
(dependent on subsidies) – how do you compare a non-subsidized model
(natural)? Subsidies need to be
provided to encourage organic farming (not just doling out money, but designing
policies so that there is a booster given to farmers) – needs to be a shift to
organic and this is the state’s job, but the state isn’t doing it because the
corporations don’t want this (and whatever the corporations want happens);
e.g. rice and wheat in Punjab – government has been told to give MSP to farmers
(e.g. rice, wheat and maize). Why can’t
we support organic producers with MSP, which would give a boost to organic
farmers? There needs to be the right
kind of policies.”
Do you think the
Minimum Support Price structure is sustainable?
Farmers are claiming that the MSP is too low and that they need higher
prices, whereas others claim that the MSP is too high and is driving up the
cost of food, making it too expensive for consumers.
Devinder Sharma: “Some
years back when Norman Bourlaug was alive, I would travel with him because I was
a journalist with The Indian Express. He
told me a story, which I wrote about. An
anecdote about investigating whether a man in Poland deserved the Nobel Peace
Prize – Bourlaug found out that this man was asking for cheaper food for the
workers but he wasn’t talking about what would happen to the millions of food
producers – so how do you expect farmers to survive if consumers want cheap
food? So Bourlaug said that he didn’t deserve
the prize. So what the economists today
are telling us is that if they are giving farmers a higher price for their
produce (so consumers get higher price too), so the state should go market
friendly with agriculture prices – in this chart, states like Bihar,
Uttarakhand and eastern Uttar Pradesh are high – getting more money than
farmers in Punjab and states at the bottom of the chart: market economy depends
on exploiting the farmers. Farmer is
also a consumer. If farmers don’t earn
anything, what do you expect them to consume?
Commission agents and middle men need to be totally removed. Direct income support to farmers is much
better – India should provide an assured monthly income to farmers based on
their yield and the area/location of the farm.
Each state should work out the average income for a farmer monthly. The average income of a farming family (5
people) is Rs 2,115 per month ($36) – below the poverty line. Government is Rs 15,000 ($250). So young people don’t want to go into
farming. So farming needs to become as
respectable as government jobs.
India has a lot of money and involves corporations, so we definitely
have the money. If 60% of the population
(farmers) had this money in their hands, this would boost the economy. Why don’t we pump money into this sector
instead of depriving it and pushing farmers out of agriculture in urban
areas? This is completely flawed
thinking.”
So do you think that
subsistence agriculture is preferable over commercial production?
Devinder Sharma: “No, I’m
not saying subsistence, but why can’t we make this subsistence agriculture
economically viable? Because policy
deliberately keeps the agriculture sector starved of money. 2/3 of the population of India relies on
agricultural sector. Farmers should
not be forced to stay in subsistence position; they should make just as much as
government. Then there will be migration
back to the countryside.”
In an ideal world, if
the government was supporting natural farming in the same way as chemical
agriculture, how do we scale up organic farming? (e.g. overcoming issues of insufficient
volumes of manure, labor intensive, decreased yield etc.)
Devinder Sharma: “All
of these things can be worked out if the intention is there. We just need to understand the prices of
India and what particular sectors we need to focus on. The moment you focus on organic, these
problems will disappear and become high yielding (number of studies show
that organic systems are more productive) – so this will all happen because the
effort will be in sustainable, not chemical breeding. Trying to involve high yielding varieties –
should shift focus to organic breeding in relation to organic
conditions/inputs. We just need a shift
in policy focus.”
Do you think that
this would necessitate a better organic certification or labeling system?
Devinder Sharma: “I’m
not at all for organic certification – this is only what the west wants and I don’t give a damn about western
consumers. We need to bring about a
lifestyle change. The labeling should be
“Chemical” and the rest should be organic (default). Labeling would add on to the cost of organic
production.”
Post –harvest
processing may not be the best route to
take, but it may have the potential to address the issue of 30-40% of food on
Earth being wasted. What do you think?
Devinder Sharma: “I
don’t think so. In India, people are
saying that 40% of fruits and vegetables rot.
But I disagree; on what studies are you basing this? We went on saying this again and again but
the fact is that we have a study done by the Central Institute For Post-Harvest
Technology based in Punjab, which shows that wastage in agriculture (e.g. in
cereals is less than 6% and in the highest in vegetables is tomatoes in 20%;
guava is around 24%) – this shows that wastage is much less, even when no
processing. In America, with processing
– waste is 40-50% less. If after
processing, there is still wastage, what is the point? Both are not correlated. Post-harvest processing should not be
associated with reducing waste.
Processing is also harmful for human health. If America had gone into reducing dependence
on processed foods and instead focused on raw foods – sickest population – we
should not follow this model. Why do
we always follow the systems that have been promoted by Western countries? I am not defending wastage, it should not
happen, but we need to go to the grassroots level and see the reality. E.g. if you go to an Indian marriage, you
find that leftovers are all consumed by dogs and birds – there isn’t much
wastage. Yes, processing has a role, but
to process everything with no need for it is flawed.”
Regarding seeds,
which do you think is better: traditional seed, open pollinated varieties,
hybrid, GMOs etc.? Some people truly
believe that GMOs are the future for their ability to be high yielding, resist
pests and disease, and feed the world’s growing population in the context of
climate change.
Devinder Sharma: “I
have been answering this question at various platforms across the globe and in
India. Those people who support GMOs are
basically being supported by institutions and universities funded by MNCs and
state. In 2012, according to the USDA,
the total production of food globally is enough to feed 14 billion people
(currently population is 7.2 billion, so we are producing food for 2x the
population) – if we reduce wastage (which is now estimated at 40%), we could
meet the food requirements until the next half century (9 billion by 2050). We produce food for next century now, so why
do we need to raise food production?
People have to shift the focus to reducing food loss but not through
just marketing and value addition. There
is no GM crop in the world, after ~25 years research, which increases
production – so it’s a myth. So if you
speak a lie 100 times, it becomes a truth.
MNCs are going on lying and lying and scientists today are no different from
politicians. Scientists are much more
dangerous than politicians are, propped up by the GM industry through all these
years. Politicians have to respond to
society through reelection but scientists are salaried by MNCs and GM industry
etc. – so who is advocating for the farmer?
I don’t blame the politicians. This
is where the monopolization of seed is coming from with technology. I once sat on a CGIAR board for intellectual
property rights, and I know what has been going on here. We want to institute stricter intellectual
property right laws and need to go back to seed so that it is not controlled by
a few seed companies (those who control seed control entire food chain). Fortunately, in India, we are very slowly
being taken over, compared to other countries, which have been taken over in a
much smaller way (e.g. Colombia demanded that farmers destroy their saved
seeds). Luckily, we [India] have been
able to resist pressure of WTO. Seed is
still an emotive and sentimental issue in India. Gradually it is coming in and I think it will
take many years for I the complete take over of the Indian seed industry. Seed Satyagraha takes place and this could empower
other people to stand up, but my worry is that by this time, the traditional
seed will have have been destroyed. For
a country like India, there is a need to preserve and conserve and at the same
time utilize traditional seeds where possible.”
I agree with you that
issues of productivity and yield should not be the focus because we produce
enough food for everyone, but having conversations with farmers, it is very
difficult for them to change their mentality since higher productivity will
give them more profit. There is a large
disconnect, so how do we reconcile this within the farming population?
Devinder Sharma: “So
far the entire propaganda is on increase of productivity, so the farmer will
buy into this. So if there was a policy
shift that provided a Minimum Support Price that concerns not just productivity/yield
but also environmental benefits and to the society and human health at large,
then the focus would shift. Propaganda
needs to shift from productivity to the other side. Let me give you one example: before dwarf,
short duration wheat varieties, the traditional/normal wheat varieties did not
have high yield but had high nutrition (e.g. minerals). What happened then, cross breeding led to
increased yield but nutrition went down in an inverse relationship (a 30-40%
drop in nutrition). The one particular
trace mineral in the wheat variety was copper and the drop was 80% (very
significant, rather than 40-50% in other minerals). If you map today the growth of the
cholesterol problem in the world and map the consumption of high yielding
varieties after the Green Revolution you find a correlation. Because there was a higher copper content in
traditional varieties, the cholesterol problem was much less. But now copper has almost disappeared and the
cholesterol problem has boomed. The
point I’m trying to make is that, copper plays a role in cholesterol control
and tomorrow, if we tell farmers that lifestyle diseases are so common that
they need to shift wheat varieties, even if yield is not high but the nutrition
will be higher and fix cholesterol problem, they will move towards traditional varieties. This is what we need to sell, and there will
be a shift in productivity with government support and propaganda. There are hundreds of such examples; we need
to move away from productivity jargon because there is no need to produce that
much, as we all know that we grow food for 13.5 billion people (2x population). We could have a number of such examples, but
we need a good leader or a sensible statesman to set the house in order.”