Updates

  • Home   /   Updates

India: Direct cash transfers is aimed at dismantling food procurement, and moving away from food self-sufficiency.

#DevinderSharma

Some weeks back, I was participating in a panel discussion on  on a national TV channel. While the discussion wheeled around the merits and demerits of cash transfer, I think the anchor was taken by surprise when I said that  is in effect a ‘cash-for-vote’ programme. Supporting my argument with a World Bank study for Latin America, I found the entire focus of the discussion thereafter shifting to whether the real intention behind the aggressive push for  is aimed at the 2014 elections.While the media as well as most panellists who frequent the TV channels, for some strange reasons, were and are still reluctant to talk about the political ramifications of cash transfers, it was Rahul Gandhi who made it abundantly clear when he told his party men that cash transfer could win them not only 2014 but also the 2019 general elections. The entire academic euphoria over the proposed aggressive roll out of Aadhar-based (UID-lined) cash therefore is simply overbearing and needs to be seen in the light of political bias. In fact, the visible trend in the ongoing national debate is more towards being seen as politically correct.
A World Bank working paper, entitled: “Conditional Cash Transfers, Political Participation and Voting Behaviour,” studied the voting behaviour for a conditional cash transfer programme launched in Colombia just before the 2010 elections. Subsequently, a 2011 study of an unconditional cash transfer programme in Uruguay clearly established that cash transfers did help the ruling party get a large share of the votes, and thereby helped the party to romp home at the back of cash transfers. In India, the political urgency and the aggressiveness with which the massive cash transfers are expected to cover the entire country by April 2014 is therefore quite obviously aimed at bringing electoral benefit to the ruling party.

The unconditional direct cash transfer programme that is proposed to be launched from Jan 1 in three phases will start with 43 districts involving a cash provision of Rs 20,000-crore. Eventually, all forms of subsidies to the poor, including food and fertiliser, will be in the form of cash flow, and would add up to Rs 3 lakh crore annually. I fail to understand how and why such a massive cash outflow pipeline will reach the beneficiaries without first putting up a fool-proof delivery system in place. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) too was envisioned with a lot of expectations but has failed miserably to deliver. Several studies have pointed to nearly 70-80 per cent leakages, and yet somehow the impression is that MNREGA has transformed the rural economics.With only 40 per cent of the population having access to banks, and with an over ambitious target of reaching the remaining population through banking correspondents – who will be operating like the village postmen except they will now be equipped with portable handheld machines acting like micro-ATMs – we are perhaps expecting too much from the most important human link between the technology and the money delivery. So far, there are only 70,000 banking correspondents and the experience has not been very encouraging. In the next one year, the number of banking correspondents will have to increase ten-fold to reach a staggering figure of 7 lakh.
Knowing that the entire rural and agricultural banking operations are rooted in corruption, I wonder how we have accepted that the banking correspondents will not be swayed by corrupt practices. If 60 per cent of the beneficiaries have to be reached through an army of banking correspondent, who will be handling over Rs 1.5 lakh crore by any conservative estimate, the delivery mechanism is certainly fraught with over-confidence stemming from political urgency. This is where I think the policy makers and bureaucrats have failed to rise above assumptions. This is where I think the aadhar-based cash-for-vote will end up being no different than the hype generated at the time of launching MNREGA.
Nevertheless, what worries me more is when cash transfers move to the next phase, and that means meeting food entitlements directly with cash. Thanks to the concerns raised by the civil society, the government has deferred cash-for-food for the time being. It was more because of the fear that the cash-for-food programme could go completely out of control, and therefore could negate the political advantage that the ruling party is hoping to garner, that it has been kept in abeyance. At a time when the proposed National Food Security bill is pending introduction before the 2014 elections, any tampering without a proper evaluation could backfire.
It is true that close to 60 per cent of the food that is channelized through the public distribution system is either wasted or siphoned off in transit, and that the entire system is mired in corruption. What reaches the poor beneficiaries is often not even fit for consumption. The answer however does not lie in dismantling the  system, but reforming the world-largest food delivery system to riddle it of corruption, and make it more effective. This is certainly possible, but given the extent of political meddling in the allotment of ration shops to transportation of grains, it has never been attempted in right earnest.For several decades now, the international emphasis has been to force India to dismantle the PDS. The first attempt was made at the time of the infamous Dunkel draft during the primitive years of world trade negotiations. WTO aimed at curtailing the PDS role, and wanted markets to ensure food security. Strong opposition from India, cutting across political lines, forced the WTO to eventually withdraw that clause.Subsequently, in the name of decentralisation of food procurement and storage system, an attempt was made during the tenure of Atal Bihari Vajpayee to divest the Centre of its onerous responsibility of procuring foods for the central pool, and leave it to the States to manage grain procurement, storage and distribution.
Several chief ministers had opposed the decentralisation move thereby forcing the government to retreat.
For several years now, the emphasis has once again been on discarding food procurement. Allowing Food Corporation of India (FCI) to increasingly take on a commercial role by shifting focus from its sovereign role of ensuring domestic food security to looking for opportunities for grain exports, and finally to engage in future trading in wheat so as to offload and earn profits from the mounting surplus it carries. This has also to be seen in conjunction with the proposal to cap food procurement to the country’s buffer stock needs, and thereby deprive farmers of getting benefit of the assured price of wheat and rice. At present, FCI is under an obligation to purchase the surplus grains flowing in to the mandisat the Minimum Support Price. Once this role is withdrawn, farmers would be left at the mercy of trade.
Providing cash in the hands of poor beneficiaries means less emphasis on the PDS ration shops. The idea is to provide coupons or provide food entitlements in the form of cash, and leaving it to the people to buy their quota from the market. Whether the money provided would be used primarily to buy liquor, junk foods or other consumer goods is an important issue, but what is more important is to understand how it is aimed at dismantling the food procurement system. This subtle way, very cleverly designed, would undo the gains of food self-sufficiency so assiduously achieved after the advent of Green Revolution.The underlying objective is very clear. Once the direct cash transfers begin, the ration shops would be gradually phased out. Once the PDS shops are removed, the cap in food procurement that is being suggested for FCI will come into play. With food procurement limited to meet the buffer requirements, which is somewhere between 14 to 22 million tonnes a year (against 82.3 million tonnes stocked with the FCI in June 2012), wheat and rice farmers would no longer get the benefit of the minimum support price. Farmers would be left to face the vagaries of the trade, and as has been the experience in those States which do not have a robust system ofmandisand thereby unable to provide farmers with assured prices, distress sale will become a norm.
Withdrawal of food procurement system will have an impact on food production. This would help farmers to abandon farming, and migrate to the urban centres. This is exactly what the World Bank has been proposing for several years now. The 2008 World Development Report had called for land rentals and providing farmers with training opportunities so that they can be absorbed in the industry. The government, as directed, made budgetary provisions for setting up 1000 industrial training institutes across the country. It is therefore obvious that the government had wanted to withdraw from food procurement and distribution for quite long now, following the dictates of the World Bank/IMF. Cash-for-food will facilitate the process and make it easy. Food requirement will then have to be met from imports, and there is already a dominant thinking within the government which advocates importing subsidised food off-the-shelf from the western countries rather than spending more on growing food within the country.
FDI in retail comes at a time when contract farming is receiving greater attention. The idea is to link the farmers growing cash crops with the supermarkets. This will help the government from doing away with the system of announcing the minimum support price and thereby reduce the subsidy outgo. This is exactly what the World Trade Organisation (WTO) had wanted several decades ago. The process to dismantle food procurement, a highly emotive issue in India, actually began in mid 1990s. It is now receiving the final touches.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had repeatedly said that the country has 70 per cent more farmers than what is required. Cash-for-food will provide the smokescreen needed to accomplish what the WTO/World Bank/IMF have been telling India for long. It is only when of the farming population is moved out of the villages that the agribusiness can find a stronghold in India. The predominant economic thinking is that the population in agriculture has to be cut back drastically for any country to grow economically. Cash transfers will then be part of the bigger promise of igniting country’s economic growth. #

Indian scientific community for stopping open air releases of GMOs –

Highlights growing scientific evidence on adverse impacts

 New Delhi, 21st November, 2013: At a time when the debate around Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the country is heating up, hundreds of Indian scientists have written to the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, asking him to ensure that Government of India heeds to the voice of science and accepts the recommendations in the final report of the independent scientists in the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee. They also urged for the stopping of all open air releases of GMOs in the country, as recommended by the majority TEC report. The letter initiated by five leading scientists from the fields of Molecular Biology, Agriculture Science, Immunology, Ecology and Science Policy Studies was released to the media at a press conference here by Dr Tushar Chakraborty and Prof Dinesh Abrol who are amongst the initiators. The letter has been endorsed by more than 250 scientists from various fields of expertise including 11 former and present Vice Chancellors of Universities across the country as well as 3 Padma awardees.
The letter comes at a time when the Supreme Court is scheduled to have a crucial hearing in the coming week, to take a view on the recommendations of a Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up in a PIL related to environmental release of GMOs in India. Five independent members of the TEC, who are eminent scientists in the fields of Molecular Biology, Biodiversity, Nutrition Science, Toxicology, Sustainability Science etc., and therefore, highly qualified in commenting on the safety aspects related to GMOs, in their Final report to the Court had strongly reccomended against any open release of GM crops, including field trials, until ‘major gaps in the regulatory system’ are addressed.
Speaking at the press conference, Dr Tushar Chakraborty, Head of the Gene Control Laboratory, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Member, State Biotechnology Council of West Bengal, pointed out that “there is an undue haste in getting GMOs released into the environment while the science behind its development is still controversial and evolving”. He further bemoaned the fact that “while there is a growing body of scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GM crops to human health and biodiveristy, there is hardly any effort from the Indian government or public sector research institutions to take up rigorous, independent safety assessment. We are instead in a dangerous and unneeded rat race of developing more GM crops and push them out into the environment without even understanding their longterm as well as cumulative impacts”
The GM debate in the Indian scientific circles has seen a polarisation due to the contradicting views between the final report submitted to the Court by the 5 independent members in the TEC and a separate report by the sixth member inducted into the Committee on the insistence of the Agriculture Ministry, Dr R.S Paroda. Dr Paroda was brought into the TEC by the Union Ministry of Agriculture and other GM advocates after an interim report of the TEC recommended strongly against any open releases of GM crops until flaws in the regulatory system are corrected. There has been strong condemnation of the fact that somebody like Dr Paroda, who has an explicit conflict interest of being an advisor to Monsanto, the world’s largest biotech seed giant and of leading organisations which are funded by companes like Mahyco, the Indian collaborator of Monsanto, was made a member of the TEC, when the Supreme Court in this very case has time and again issued orders that upheld the importance of independent expertise driving decision making in this matter.
“The history of GM crops, not just in India but across the world, has been laden with such conflicts of interest and corporate control of agriculture research” said Prof Dinesh Abrol, a science policy studies expert, and a visiting professor to Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

 The speakers pointed out to studies that show that scientists with relationship with industry are more significantly associated with data withholding than others, in genetics and other life sciences. Research also shows that existence of financial and professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light. Another study which looked at risk assessment studies found that such research is still limited, especially in particular crops; this study found an equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting on the basis of their studies that a number of varieties of GM products to be as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns. It also noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible for commercializing these GM plants. “All of this illustrates the lack of independent scientific research to the extent needed, in addition to lack of scientific consensus. Without addressing these issues, there is no urgent need to rush into GM crop open air releases”, Prof Abrol said.

 The press conference also saw the release of the 2nd edition of the compilation of scientific references and abstracts of more than 400 peer reviewed papers on various adverse impacts of GM crops/foods published across the world2. The compilation also has brief commentarieswritten by eminent leading scientists like Dr M. S Swaminathan, Dr Pushpa Bhargava and Prof Madhav Gadgil, considered as doyens of agriculture science, molecular biology and ecology respectively, in India.
Releasing the compilation, Kavitha Kuruganti, Coalition for a GM-Free India, stated that “There is no dearth of scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GMOs in our food, farming and environment; what is needed is the eyes to see it, the wisdom to understand it and the conscience to accept it”. She further stated that “GM crops are one of the biggest scientific frauds that Biotech seed Industry, ably supported by some of our unscrupulous policy makers and public sector scientists, are pulling off on our country”.

 In another development on the biosafety research front, researchers from the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, have confirmed the carcinogenic potential of Roundup herbicide using human skin cells exposed to extremely low concentrations of the world’slargest selling herbicide, used along with GM herbicide tolerant crops3. The study gains a lot of significance at a time when there are efforts from the Biotech Industry to release Herbicide Tolerant (HT) GM crops that will substantially increase the usage of herbicides like Roundup. The Final TEC report by the five independent members had strongly recommended against the release of any HT GM crops in India due to various such concerns.

 The speakers urged the Prime Minister to be responsive to science and responsible to society when deciding on such risky technologies like GM crops which pose a threat to human health, biodiversity and farm livelihoods. They demanded that the Government of India stay clear of any vested interests and accept the recommendations of the TEC Final report as it is based on sound science, principles of sustainability and intergenerational justice. This, they said, would help in ensuring the speedy delivery of justice in the PIL on the issue of GM crops .
Notes to the editor:

  1. The letter from Indian scientists to the Prime Minister on the issue of GM crops and their regualtion can be accessed athttp://indiagminfo.org/?p=654
  2. The 2nd edition of the compilation of scientific references and abstracts on various adverse impacts of GM crops/foods is available at http://indiagminfo.org/?p=657
  3. The study from Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, can be accessed at http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/dermatology/2013/825180/

Contacts:
Dr Tushar Chakraborty, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and member, State Biotechnology Council of West Bengal, Mob: 09831746294 , email: chakraborty.tushar@gmail.com
Prof Dinesh Abrol, Institute of Studies in Industrial Development, New delhi, Mob: 09868242691,email: dinesh.abrol@gmail.com
Kavitha Kuruganti, Coalition for a GM Free India, Mob: 09393001550              email: kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com
Rajesh Krishnan, Co Convenor, Coalition for a GM Free India, Mob: 09845650032 email: rajeshecologist@gmail.com

Highlights growing scientific evidence on adverse impacts of GM crops

Highlights growing scientific evidence on adverse impacts of 

 New Delhi, 21st November, 2013: At a time when the debate around Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the country is heating up, hundreds of Indian scientists have written to the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, asking him to ensure that Government of India heeds to the voice of science and accepts the recommendations in the final report of the independent scientists in the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee. They also urged for the stopping of all open air releases of GMOs in the country, as recommended by the majority TEC report. The letter initiated by five leading scientists from the fields of Molecular Biology, Agriculture Science, Immunology, Ecology and Science Policy Studies was released to the media at a press conference here by Dr Tushar Chakraborty and Prof Dinesh Abrol who are amongst the initiators. The letter has been endorsed by more than 250 scientists from various fields of expertise including 11 former and present Vice Chancellors of Universities across the country as well as 3 Padma awardees. The letter comes at a time when the Supreme Court is scheduled to have a crucial hearing in the coming week, to take a view on the recommendations of a Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up in a PIL related to environmental release of GMOs in India. Five independent members of the TEC, who are eminent scientists in the fields of Molecular Biology, Biodiversity, Nutrition Science, Toxicology, Sustainability Science etc., and therefore, highly qualified in commenting on the safety aspects related to GMOs, in their Final report to the Court had strongly reccomended against any open release of GM crops, including field trials, until ‘major gaps in the regulatory system’ are addressed. Speaking at the press conference, Dr Tushar Chakraborty, Head of the Gene Control Laboratory, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Member, State Biotechnology Council of West Bengal, pointed out that “there is an undue haste in getting GMOs released into the environment while the science behind its development is still controversial and evolving”. He further bemoaned the fact that “while there is a growing body of scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GM crops to human health and biodiveristy, there is hardly any effort from the Indian government or public sector research institutions to take up rigorous, independent safety assessment. We are instead in a dangerous and unneeded rat race of developing more GM crops and push them out into the environment without even understanding their longterm as well as cumulative impacts” The GM debate in the Indian scientific circles has seen a polarisation due to the contradicting views between the final report submitted to the Court by the 5 independent members in the TEC and a separate report by the sixth member inducted into the Committee on the insistence of the Agriculture Ministry, Dr R.S Paroda. Dr Paroda was brought into the TEC by the Union Ministry of Agriculture and other GM advocates after an interim report of the TEC recommended strongly against any open releases of GM crops until flaws in the regulatory system are corrected. There has been strong condemnation of the fact that somebody like Dr Paroda, who has an explicit conflict interest of being an advisor to Monsanto, the world’s largest biotech seed giant and of leading organisations which are funded by companes like Mahyco, the Indian collaborator of Monsanto, was made a member of the TEC, when the Supreme Court in this very case has time and again issued orders that upheld the importance of independent expertise driving decision making in this matter. “The history of GM crops, not just in India but across the world, has been laden with such conflicts of interest and corporate control of agriculture research” said Prof Dinesh Abrol, a science policy studies expert, and a visiting professor to Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

 The speakers pointed out to studies that show that scientists with relationship with industry are more significantly associated with data withholding than others, in genetics and other life sciences. Research also shows that existence of financial and professional conflict of interest was associated to study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a favorable light. Another study which looked at risk assessment studies found that such research is still limited, especially in particular crops; this study found an equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting on the basis of their studies that a number of varieties of GM products to be as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns. It also noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible for commercializing these GM plants. “All of this illustrates the lack of independent scientific research to the extent needed, in addition to lack of scientific consensus. Without addressing these issues, there is no urgent need to rush into GM crop open air releases”, Prof Abrol said.

The press conference also saw the release of the 2nd edition of the compilation of scientific references and abstracts of more than 400 peer reviewed papers on various adverse impacts of GM crops/foods published across the world2. The compilation also has brief commentarieswritten by eminent leading scientists like Dr M. S Swaminathan, Dr Pushpa Bhargava and Prof Madhav Gadgil, considered as doyens of agriculture science, molecular biology and ecology respectively, in India. Releasing the compilation, Kavitha Kuruganti, Coalition for a GM-Free India, stated that “There is no dearth of scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GMOs in our food, farming and environment; what is needed is the eyes to see it, the wisdom to understand it and the conscience to accept it”. She further stated that “GM crops are one of the biggest scientific frauds that Biotech seed Industry, ably supported by some of our unscrupulous policy makers and public sector scientists, are pulling off on our country”.

 In another development on the biosafety research front, researchers from the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, have confirmed the carcinogenic potential of Roundup herbicide using human skin cells exposed to extremely low concentrations of the world’slargest selling herbicide, used along with GM herbicide tolerant crops3. The study gains a lot of significance at a time when there are efforts from the Biotech Industry to release Herbicide Tolerant (HT) GM crops that will substantially increase the usage of herbicides like Roundup. The Final TEC report by the five independent members had strongly recommended against the release of any HT GM crops in India due to various such concerns.

The speakers urged the Prime Minister to be responsive to science and responsible to society when deciding on such risky technologies like GM crops which pose a threat to human health, biodiversity and farm livelihoods. They demanded that the Government of India stay clear of any vested interests and accept the recommendations of the TEC Final report as it is based on sound science, principles of sustainability and intergenerational justice. This, they said, would help in ensuring the speedy delivery of justice in the PIL on the issue of GM crops . Notes to the editor:

  1. The letter from Indian scientists to the Prime Minister on the issue of GM crops and their regualtion can be accessed athttp://indiagminfo.org/?p=654
  2. The 2nd edition of the compilation of scientific references and abstracts on various adverse impacts of GM crops/foods is available at http://indiagminfo.org/?p=657
  3. The study from Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, can be accessed at http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/dermatology/2013/825180/

Contacts: Dr Tushar Chakraborty, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and member, State Biotechnology Council of West Bengal, Mob: 09831746294 , email: chakraborty.tushar@gmail.com Prof Dinesh Abrol, Institute of Studies in Industrial Development, New delhi, Mob: 09868242691,email: dinesh.abrol@gmail.com Kavitha Kuruganti, Coalition for a GM Free India, Mob: 09393001550              email: kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com Rajesh Krishnan, Co Convenor, Coalition for a GM Free India, Mob: 09845650032 email: rajeshecologist@gmail.com

How Roundup weedkiller can promote cancer, new study from India reveals

1. How Roundup weedkiller can promote cancer, new study reveals
Sayer Ji
GreenMedInfo, 11 Nov 2013
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/how-roundup-weedkiller-can-promote-cancer-new-study-reveals-1?page=1
[Links to sources and graphics included at weblink above]
Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) is in our air, rain, groundwater, soil and most food in the U.S., and an increasing body of research reveals it has cancer-promoting properties.
Researchers from the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research have recently confirmed the carcinogenic potential of Roundup herbicide using human skin cells (HaCaT) exposed to extremely low concentrations of the world’s best selling herbicide.
The researchers previously reported on glyphosate’s tumor promoting potential in a two-stage mouse skin carcinogenesis model[i] through its disruption of proteins that regulate calcium (Ca2+- ) signaling and oxidative stress (SOD 1), but were unable in these investigations to identify the exact molecular mechanisms behind how glyphosate contributes to tumor promotion.
The new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal ISRN Dermatology,[ii] sought out to clarify the exact mode of tumorigenic action, finding the likely mechanism behind glyphosate’s cancer promoting properties is through the downregulation of mitochondrial apoptotic (self-destructive) signaling pathways, as well as through the disruption of a wide range of cell signaling and regulatory components. Cell proliferative effects were induced by concentrations lower than .1 mM, and as low as 0.01 mM, which is four orders of magnitude lower than concentrations commonly used in GM agricultural applications (e.g. 50 mM). The fact that lower concentrations were more effective at inducing proliferation than higher concentrations (which suppressed cell growth), indicates that Roundup is a potent endocrine disrupter, and further highlights why conventional toxicological risk assessments are inadequate because they do not account for the fact that as concentrations are reduced certain types of toxicity — e.g. endocrine disruption — actually increase.
The researchers used the product Roundup Original (glyphosate 41%, polyethoxethyleneamine (POEA) ≅15%—Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA), and observed the following changes to human skin cells induced through exposure to this chemical mixture:
*Significant increases in cell proliferation (via disruption of CA2+ levels, i.e. decreased levels)
Increases oxidative stress, as measured by levels of ROS (reactive oxygen species)
*Cell-cycle dysregulation, marked by an accumulation of cells in S-phase (hallmark feature of cancer)
*Increased proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a marker for increased cell proliferation
*Increased Bromodeoxyuridin (BrdU), a marker for increased cell proliferation
*Decreases in the level of the protein IP3R1, an indication of resistance to cell death
*Increases in Bcl-2 protein, a tumor promoter gene product
*Decreases in Bax proteins, a tumor suppressor gene product
*Caspase suppression (associated with prevention of cell death)
*Changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding family of proteins (S100 family) S100A6/S100A9, associated with various cancers.
It is important to emphasize that while the researchers observed cell proliferation-associated changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding proteins S100A6/A9 following glyphosate exposure to human skin cells, the implications of these findings reach beyond the skin cell lineage. They explained that related modifications of the expression pattern of S100A6/A9 protein have also been found in “hepatocellular carcinoma [15], lung cancer [16], colorectal cancer [17], and melanoma [18].”
The study included a diagram (shown below) representing graphically the multiple ways in which glyphosate disrupts cellular structure/function to contribute to uncontrolled cell proliferation.
The researchers summarized their findings as follows:
“In conclusion, in this study, we demonstrated that glyphosate may possibly exert proliferative effect in HaCaT cells by activating Ca2+ binding proteins to promote the imbalance of intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis and lessen SOD1 to increase ROS generation. This effect was partially reversed by treatment with antioxidant NAC indicating connections between oxidative stress and hypocalcaemia. Reduced Ca2+ levels enhance Bcl-2 and decrease Bax, subsequently leading to decrease in cytochrome c to stimulate further decrease of caspase 3 via the downregulation of IP3R1 level, thus halting apoptosis. The present study for the first time provides insight into the mechanism of glyphosate-induced neoplastic potential in mammalian skin system.”
It should be noted that their observation that the carcinogenicity of Roundup may be suppressed by the antioxidant n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), which is a precursor to the cellular detoxifier and antioxidant known as glutathione and a readily available dietary supplement, has important implications, owing to how widespread exposure to Roundup herbicide has become, both through environmental exposures in air, soil, rain and groundwater, as well as in the tens of thousands of unlabeled products containing GM ingredients contaminated with physiologically significant levels of this chemical.
—
—
2. Emptying of Intracellular Calcium Pool and Oxidative Stress Imbalance Are Associated with the Glyphosate-Induced Proliferation in Human Skin Keratinocytes HaCaT Cells
Jasmine George and Yogeshwer Shukla
ISRN Dermatology
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 825180, 12 pages
Full text available free at:
http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/dermatology/2013/825180/
Proteomics Laboratory, Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR), Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226001, India
Abstract
We demonstrated that glyphosate possesses tumor promoting potential in mouse skin carcinogenesis and SOD 1, calcyclin (S100A6), and calgranulin B (S100A9) have been associated with this potential, although the mechanism is unclear. We aimed to clarify whether imbalance in between  levels and oxidative stress is associated with glyphosate-induced proliferation in human keratinocytes HaCaT cells. The  levels, ROS generation, and expressions of G1/S cyclins, IP3R1, S100A6, S100A9, and SOD 1, and apoptosis-related proteins were investigated upon glyphosate exposure in HaCaT cells. Glyphosate (0.1 mM) significantly induced proliferation, decreases , and increases ROS generation in HaCaT cells, whereas antioxidant N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) pretreatment reverts these effects which directly indicated that glyphosate induced cell proliferation by lowering  levels via ROS generation. Glyphosate also enhanced the expression of G1/S cyclins associated with a sharp decrease in G0/G1 and a corresponding increase in S-phases. Additionally, glyphosate also triggers S100A6/S100A9 expression and decreases IP3R1 and SOD 1 expressions in HaCaT cells. Notably, Ca2+ suppression also prevented apoptotic related events including Bax/Bcl-2 ratio and caspases activation. This study highlights that glyphosate promotes proliferation in HaCaT cells probably by disrupting the balance in between  levels and oxidative stress which in turn facilitated the downregulation of mitochondrial apoptotic signaling pathways.

Groundwater Collectivization for Sustainable Agriculture in Drought Prone Areas – a case study in Kummaravandla Palli village of Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh

a case study “Groundwater Collectivization for Sustainable Agriculture in Drought Prone Areas – a case study in Kummaravandla Palli village of Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh, authored by G. Sreedhar, G. Shankar Reddy, D. Dadabi and Y. Giri Prasad, Professor, and Project Fellows, UGC SAP and Research Scholar, respectively, in the Department of Rural Development & Social Work, S.K. University, Anantapur district.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xpffvlqxzgrhi6a/Ground%20Water%20Colletivization%20Initiative-A%20Case%20Study-GS-05042013.pdf
If you have any comments, please feel free to contact Dr. G. Greedhar at gsreedharsku@gmail.com.

CSA complaint on Illegal spread of Herbicide Tolerant cotton

Dr. G. V. Ramanjaneyulu
Executive Director
To                                                                                                                                           Hyderabad
The Commissioner Agriculture                                                                                   8th November, 2013
Department of Agriculture
Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dear Sir
Sub: Illegal sales of Herbicide Tolerant Cotton in Srikakulam Dist –reg
Greetings from Centre for Sustainable Agriculture!
CSA is actively working across the state in promoting sustainable agriculture.
During one of our field visits to srikakulam district, we came across cultivation of herbicide tolerant cotton in tribal belts of seethampet mandal of srikakulam dist. Seeds were sold by a person named Nagireddy from Guntur and the brand name of the seed is KALPAVRIKSHA.  The cover has no address and name of the supplier (empty packet attached).
In and around Kotturu, near about 200 + acres is under this cotton. In Kotturu itself, one farmer by name Siridi Bhaskar Rao who has 50+ acres under this variety this year. Other villages include Bukkuduguda, Puliputti village 4 farmers growing 9 acres, Dantalaguda village 6 farmers 14 acres, Vempaliguda village  6 farmers 14 acres, Mukundapuram village 2 farmers 7 acres and Rekulaguda village  2 farmers 7 acres.  The strip tests we have done confirmed that the cotton hybrid grown here is resistant to glyphosate.
We had video recorded interviews with the farmers (DVD attached). The samples are tested positive for Glyphosate resistant event (Roundup Ready) developed by Monsanto.
http://krishi.tv/292-illegal-spread-roundup-ready-cotton-srikakulam-dist
This event is not yet approved by GEAC for commercial cultivation and biosafety tests are not completed.
There are serious health concerns with the herbicide tolerant cotton and the glyphosate which is used. The spread of such unapproved, untested and highly dangerous seeds to farmers in the tribal farmers has to be immediately curbed and action has to be initiated on the concerned officials who failed in regulation and the company which is responsible for the spread.
This is not first time such illegal cultivation of herbicide tolerant crops is noticed. In 2008, the then Commissioner Agriculture of Government of Andhra Pradesh made a complaint to GEAC that around 20,000 acres of Herbicide tolerant cotton is under cultivation.  GEAC has discussed this issue in 98th meeting in December 2009, Agenda Item 6.4 was on complaints about sale of illegal HT cotton seed. It was clearly acknowledged that illegal HT cotton, tested in laboratories with the samples testing positive for the HT trait (MON1445 event), was being supplied and grown in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh government reported suspension of seed license to one company and destruction of HT cotton crop and that more reports are awaited from some more districts, the decision was to “direct state governments to initiate punitive action against erring companies, and that follow up with respective state governments to curb the illegal cultivation of HT cotton should continue on a regular basis”. However, the presence of HT cotton in Srikakulam district showcases once again the incapable and apathetic regulatory system that refuses to take any effective action.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on GM crops and the Technical Expert Committee appointed by the Supreme Court both recommended that the Herbicide Tolerant crops are not suitable for the country and also that the field trials should be stopped for atleast ten years till the regulations are improved.
The source of such illegal seeds seems to be the company which have developed them. The company has to take responsibility as they were only given permission for laboratory research and confined field trials. Escape of any form from these should be primarily be the responsibility of the company.
On 29th October, during a meeting at the commissioner office, we brought up this issue with you and showed the video of interviews with farmers and when we visited the field again on 3rd November, we found that no action has been initiated and even the concerned officials have not even visited the field.
In this context we request you to kindly

  1. Investigate to assess the extent of illegal, unapproved HT cotton cultivation in this area and all of Andhra Pradesh
  2. Fix liability on the offenders who are responsible for such spread as per the EPA rules, 1986. The state Governments should also fix liability under seed laws for unlicensed seed trade. Government of India should fix responsibility on regulators for failing to curb this illegal proliferation of unapproved GMOs.
  3. Write to GEAC to action on the company which is responsible for the leakage of the material from their research labs and confined field trials

We also bring to your kind notice that such illegal cultivation of several GM crops is happening across the state.  The companies which are permitted field trials are not taking responsibility when the trials are contaminating the neighboring crops or seeds escape and find their way into commercial market illegally.
Therefore we request the AP state government to kindly stop all permissions for the GM field trials without Biosafety approvals.
Looking forward for your immediate action
(Ramanjaneyulu)
09000699702
seed packet front side
Seed packets without any details
seed packet backside
strip test
Strip test confirming presence of Roundup Ready event
herbicide-tolerant-crops-briefing-paper

India: Why property rights for women matter

http://southasia.oneworld.net/features/india-why-property-rights-for-women-matter#.UnzjXYVvA7B

Nov 07, 2013
For women, effective rights in property are critically important, not just for their economic well-being but also for their political and social empowerment, writes Bina Agarwal.

Indian rural women
Delhi: Bina Agarwal is a prize-winning development economist and Professor of Development Economics and Environment at the University of Manchester. Earlier, she was Director, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. Her work, ‘A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights’ in South Asia, came out in 1994. She also spearheaded a successful campaign for the comprehensive amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which resulted in the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. In this conversation with Pamela Philipose, she talks about how women’s property rights have evolved in India.
For women, effective rights in property are critically important, not just for their economic well-being but also for their political and social empowerment.
Why is women’s command over such property important? Consider land. As I have spelt out in my writings, for the vast numbers still living in villages, land remains the mainstay of livelihoods. It is the primary factor of production and the main source of income and welfare for millions.
There is also a strong correlation between landlessness and poverty. Even a small plot can protect a family from destitution by providing supplementary income. Simply getting a title to land can be greatly empowering for women in a context where they have none. This was wonderfully encapsulated in the words of women who received land titles for the first time after the Bodh Gaya movement in Bihar in the late 1970s. They were quoted as having said: “We had tongues, but could not speak/We had feet, but could not walk/Now that we have land/ We have the strength to speak and walk.”
These benefits of possessing land are compounded for women, who are even more dependent on agriculture than men, since men have been increasingly migrating to non-farm jobs. Land in women’s hands not only enhances their own livelihood options, but also the welfare of their families. Many studies reveal that women tend to spend a larger proportion of their incomes from employment or assets on family needs, especially children’s needs, than men.
An additional finding from research I did with a colleague a few years ago is the security against domestic violence land ownership can provide. We studied 502 ever-married women in the 15-49 age group in the rural and urban areas of Thiruvananthapuram district in Kerala, and found that the incidence of spousal physical violence was 49 per cent among those who owned neither land nor a house, but only seven per cent among those who owned both; and 10 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively, for those who owned only a house or only land.
Apart from these benefits, given the feminisation of agriculture, secure land rights for women are necessary for increasing farm output. About 40 per cent of agricultural workers in India are women but their productivity is seriously constrained by their lack of access to land, credit (for which land can serve as collateral), inputs, technical information, and so on. Without land titles women are not even seen as farmers and seldom benefit from government schemes meant for marginal farmers. According to FAO’s 2011 State of Agriculture Report, reducing the constraints faced by women farmers in developing countries could raise farm yields by 20-30 per cent and raise total agricultural output by 2.5-4 per cent.
Women can gain access to land in many ways: via inheritance, through the state, or through the market. Of these, inheritance is especially important since almost 86 per cent of arable land in India is privately owned. It is sometimes argued that granting daughters equal inheritance rights will fragment holdings and reduce farm productivity. This argument has two problems. First, fragmentation can occur even where sons are involved, so privileging one sex over another cannot be justified. Second, the unit of ownership need not be the unit of cultivation. Families often continue to farm together and land can be consolidated in many other ways as well, including by groups of women pooling their plots and cultivating them jointly – this has been happening for many years in parts of Andhra Pradesh and Kerala.
The early 20th century also saw the emergence of a number of women’s organisations demanding inheritance rights for women in a predominantly patrilineal context. This was one of the central issues taken up by organisations such as the All India Women’s Conference and the Women’s Indian Association. An important part of that history was the setting up of the Rau Committee in the 1940s. The Committee recommended enactment of a Hindu Code with provisions for stronger inheritance rights for women, more liberal divorce laws, etc. Encapsulated in the Hindu Code Bill of 1947, the provisions were widely debated in the Legislative Assembly. Both Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru were committed to the Bill but it was deferred till after the first general election of Independent India of 1951, because of resistance from conservative elements within the Congress.
As finally passed, the original elements of the Hindu Code Bill were unpacked, and enacted in four separate Acts, including the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) of 1956 which dealt with inheritance. In retrospect, it was very helpful that there were four separate Acts, since this made it easier to subsequently reform the HSA in women’s favour. For instance, in 2005, when I worked for the amendment of the HSA to make it gender equal, the chances of success would have been greatly diminished if issues of succession had got enmeshed with issues of marriage and divorce.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (HSAA 2005) was in fact a landmark. It brought all agricultural land on par with other forms of property, and made Hindu Women’s inheritance rights in land legally equal to men’s across states. The amended Act also made all daughters (married and unmarried) coparceners along with sons in joint family property, with the same rights to shares, to claim partition, and (by presumption) to become kartas (managers) of that property.
The amended Act is thus a significant legal step forward and has the potential for substantially empowering women. But so far we have little information on this count. In fact, we still do not have systematic data across the country on women’s actual ownership of immovable property. A 1991 survey in seven states by development sociologist, Marty Chen, although on a small sample, is indicative. It showed that only 13 percent of women whose fathers owned land had inherited any as daughters, although Kerala did much better with a figure of 43 percent. We also know from the Agricultural Census of 1995-96 (when gender disaggregated data were collected) that women held only 9.5 per cent of all operational (that is cultivated) land holdings. We need more up-to-date information, however, and there is a strong case for strengthening the database by disaggregating land owned and operated by gender in agricultural censuses and NSS surveys.
Moreover, although we now have a gender-equal inheritance law for Hindu women, there have been rather few efforts by women’s organisations to use this ammended law innovatively. The neglect of the HSAA 2005 by women’s groups is surprising, since the Act can go a long way in protecting women even from domestic violence. The HSAA, as noted, allows women to reside in their parental home as a right and not on sufferance. It is therefore time the enormous potential of the HSAA 2005 in empowering women is given due cognisance, both by civil society groups and government.
In the long term, of course, it is not desirable that families be torn apart by litigation over property. What we would want is a voluntary recognition by society that daughters are equal to sons in terms of their rights over property, especially immovable property. This will need substantial attitudinal change.

Community managed system sows the seeds of success

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/community-managed-system-sows-the-seeds-of-success/article5322435.ece
M. J. PRABU

SHARE  ·   COMMENT   ·   PRINT   ·   T+
PRODUCTION: A total of 2,888 acres of seed production was taken up in 183 villages with more than 2,000 farmers.
Special ArrangementPRODUCTION: A total of 2,888 acres of seed production was taken up in 183 villages with more than 2,000 farmers.

This model helped many growers get access to good quality seeds

Like many other farmers across the country, preserving and using seeds is a major issue for Andhra Pradesh groundnut cultivators. In Anantapur district, farmers mostly grow groundnut.
The crop diversity in this region earlier included many dryland crops like sorghum, finger millet, pearl millet, foxtail millet and groundnut. Farmers used to grow various crops and groundnut was alternated between red gram, coriander, sesame, sorghum and finger millet. But over time, groundnut became a major crop in the region due to its commercial value.
Perennial debt
“The high input costs on one side and decreasing yields due to prolonged usage of chemical fertilizers forced many growers to borrow money from private money lenders and the moment the crop is harvested, it is sold immediately to pay off the debts. Often the area is prone to droughts and seed availability has been a serious issue for more than 15 years,” says Dr. G. V. Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Secunderabad.
Farmers could raise only one good crop every three years. Being already in debt they sold off the harvested nuts for repaying loans and other expenses rather than preserving the seeds for next season.
Also, absence of proper storage facilities posed a serious problem; many felt that the seed from the same land will not grow well if sown for the next season. Subsidised government seeds are available at half the price in the market so farmers preferred to buy those seeds rather than save some for themselves.
But buying the seeds is an arduous task, according to Dr. Ramanjaneyulu. Every year soon after the monsoon season farmers start to queue up for buying subsidised seeds from Government cooperatives.
Each farmer has a passbook which he needs to show in order to get the seeds. Very often, a farmer ends up making at least three to four trips to the town to buy the seeds.
Different varieties
“Sometimes they do not get the seeds (due to no stock) or get them very late in the season. If he does get it on time, there is no guarantee of its quality. Earlier Ananthapur farmers used to grow different groundnut varieties depending on demand, but the subsidy seeds given by the government covers only a few or sometimes only a single variety,” explains Dr. Ramanjaneyulu.
In 2006-07, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Hyderabad and Rural Environment Development Society (REDS), Kadiri, initiated groundnut seed production through women self help groups as part of the ‘Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture’ programme in different villages.
Different farmers’ groups took responsibility for managing the entire programme.
Subsidy
However, seed subsidy could not be extended as the Department of Agriculture was not ready to support farmers own seeds. In 2011 another initiative, a community managed seed system () was started in partnership with WASSAN (Watershed Support Services Network) a Hyderabad based NGO with the objective of meeting the requirements of both seed producers and consumers.
The programme was started in 2011 during rabi season to supply seeds for 2012 kharif. The foundation seed was supplied with 50 per cent subsidy from the department of agriculture
The Government agreed to facilitate the process of exchanging the seeds at farmer level and extended subsidy for them.
“A total of 2,888 acres of seed production was taken up in 183 villages involving more than 2,000 farmers under the programme. The group was able to procure 3,763 quintals of seed and distributed it to nearly 4,000 farmers. Similarly in 2013 they have distributed 11,518 quintals of seeds in 260 villages covering nearly to 10,000 acres,” adds Dr. Ramanjaneyulu.
Control
The seed production, supply and distribution, administration are localized within a cluster of villages where the overall control is by the farmers.
This model helped many growers get access to good quality seeds at affordable prices and also saved enormous expense for the Government.
To know more contact Dr. G. V. Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, 12-13-445, Street no-1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-500 017, website: www.krishi.tv, email: ramoo.csa@gmail.com, facebook: ramoo.agripage, mobile: 09000699702.

India’s Role in the New Global Farmland Grab

See how CII, CIFA, FICCI etc have played an important role in new farm land grab by Indian companies
indias role in new global farmland grab
This report explores the role of Indian agricultural companies that have been involved in the
recent trend in large-scale overseas acquisitions of farmland, criticised as “land grabbing”.
While many international companies have traditionally grown cash crops abroad, and more
recently crops for producing biofuels for global markets, this report is focused especially on
the issue of Indian companies that invest in food production overseas.
The report examines the various factors driving the “outsourcing” of domestic food
production. Primary among these are the Indian Government’s growing strategic concerns
about ensuring the country’s long-term food security, and its concerns about diminishing
ground water tables in Northern and Central India. Other factors include the allure for Indian
foreign investors of much cheaper land and more abundant water sources in overseas
locations and the eager welcome of many developing country governments, many of which
have courted Indian agricultural investors. In many cases, such countries have offered special
incentives, including the offer to lease massive tracts of arable land at very generous terms,
including access to water and the ability to fully repatriate profits generated.
The report also lists the major ways in which the Indian Government has been increasingly
pro-active in taking steps to facilitate this trend for overseas agricultural investment by Indian
companies, such as high-level trade diplomacy and lines of credit from the Export-Import
Bank. India’s outward foreign direct investment has been enabled by a series of reforms and
modifications over the last decade to India’s rules and regulations on Indian companies
investing in overseas operations.
Also reviewed are the pro-active roles played by national Indian business associations such as
the Confederation of Indian Industry’s (CII), the Associated Chambers of Commerce and
Industry of India (ASSOCHAM), the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
Industries (FICCI), as well as by sector-specific groups, such as the Consortium of Indian
Farmers Association (CIFA) and the Solvent Extractors Association (SEA) of India. Such
groups have been actively engaged in high-level trade delegations to countries which are
interested in luring Indian agricultural firms to invest, and have arranged a series of business
conclaves and trade fairs. The groups are all active in lobbying the Indian Government to
pursue even further reforms to trade policy, Exim Bank credits and the rules on outward
foreign direct investment in order to facilitate the overseas acquisitions of agricultural land by
Indian companies.
The report also explores the negative consequences of such a trend. It looks at why critics
have called the trend “land grabbing” and reviews the impacts on local peoples on the
ground, who are often displaced in the process. It considers the negative ethical, political,
human rights and environmental consequences for the people and host countries involved in
such investments by Indian companies.
Although information about such overseas operations by Indian companies is difficult to get
from the Indian Government, this report used available research and press accounts to explore
the details of 19 Indian companies who have made such land acquisitions abroad, including
an exposé of the actual contracts of 5 Indian companies operating in Ethiopia. Ethiopia has
taken center stage in the story of “land grabbing” because it is one of the developing
countries where some of the largest agricultural land acquisitions by foreign investors have
occurred, including by Indian firms.
The report reviews the calls by many advocates for a major shift away from the current model
of large, corporate commercial agricultural production based on monoculture, which depends
on chemicals and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), towards an alternative
agricultural production model based on a more decentralised approach that favors small
holder farmers. Such an approach is based on agro-ecological methods that support and
enhance biodiversity, environmental sustainability and community control.
Finally, this report gives voice to those Indian activists fighting for small farmers rights and
against the “land grabbing” going on within India, and their call to create international
linkages of solidarity with small farmers in other countries who are facing similar problems.
They see a “common struggle” everywhere in the world and are calling on Indian citizens to
take action to address the problem of landing-grabbing by Indian companies operating
overseas.

Government Subsidy Schemes on Seed across the country

Scheme/Component Crops Scale of Assistance
Macro Management Rice and Wheat Rs.500/- per quintal or 50% of the cost, whichever is less for certified seed distribution for rice and wheat.
Mode of Agriculture-State Work Plan 
 
 		 Bajra, Jowar, Ragi and Barley 
 
 		 Rs.800/- per quintal or 50% of the cost, whichever is less for certified seed distribution of varieties for Bajra, Jowar and Barley
Rs.1000/- per quintal for certified seed distribution of hybrid of Bajra and Jowar.
Rs.1000/- quintal or 50% of the cost, whichever is less for assistance for production hybrid rice seed.
Rs.2000/- per quintal or 50% of the cost, whichever is less assistance for production hybrid rice seed distribution.
Integrated Scheme on Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil Palm and Maize All Oilseeds, Pulses and Maize  Full cost for purchase of Breeder seed.
Rs.1000/- quintal for foundation and certified seed production.
Rs.1200/- per quintal or 25% of Seeds cost whichever is less for certified seed distribution.
Oil Palm Sprouts  Full cost of Seed Minikits of high yielding varieties (implementing agency NSC/SFCI).
75% of the cost with a ceiling of Rs.7500/ha.for entire land holding of farmers.
Technology Mission on Cotton Cotton Seed 50% of the cost or Rs.50/- per kg. whichever is less for foundation seed production.
25% of the cost or Rs..15/- per kg. whichever is less for Certified seed production.
Rs.20/- per kg. for certified seed  distribution.
50% of the cost limited to Rs.40/- per kg. seed treatment
Technology Mission on Jute and Mesta Jute and Mesta 50% of the  cost limited to Rs.3000/- per quintal for  foundation seed production.
25% of the  cost limited to Rs.700/- per quintal for  Certified seed production
50% of the cost limited to Rs.2000/- per quintal for certified seed distribution.
National Food Security Mission 
 
 		 Rice Rs.1000/- per quintal or 50% of the cost whichever is less for certified hybrid rice seed production.
Rs.2000/- per quintal or 50% of Seeds cost whichever is less for certified hybrid rice seed distribution.
Rs.5/- per kg.. or 50% of the cost, whichever is less for certified high yielding varieties seed distribution.
Full cost of Seed Minikits of high yielding varieties.
Wheat Rs.5/- per kg. or 50% of the cost whichever is less for certified high yielding varieties seed distribution
Full cost of Seed Minikits of high yielding varieties.
Pulses Rs.1000/- per quintal for foundation and certified seeds production.
Rs.1200/- per quintal or 50% of the cost whichever is less for certified seed distribution.
Full cost of Seed Minikits of high yielding varieties
Seed Village Programme All Agricultural Crops To upgrade the quality of farmer saved seed financial assistance for distribution of foundation/certified seeds at 50% cost of the seed for production of quality seeds.
Assistance to train the farmers on seed production and seed technology @ Rs.15000/- for a group of 50-150 farmers.
to encourage farmers to develop storage capacity of appropriate quality  assistance @ 33% subject to a maximum of Rs. 3000/- for SC/ST farmers and @ 25% subject to maximum of Rs. 2000/- for other farmers for procuring seeds storage bin of 20 qtl. capacity .Assistance @ 33%  subject to maximum of Rs. 1500/- to SC/ST farmers and @ 25% subject to maximum of Rs. 1000/- for other farmers for making seeds storage bin of 10 qtl. capacity in the seed villages where seed village scheme is being implemented.
Transport subsidy on Movement of Seeds to North Eastern States including Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand & Hill areas of West Bengal  All certified seeds excluding potato 100% difference between road and rail transportation charge is being reimbursed to implementing States/Agencies for movement of seeds produced from outside the State to the identified State Capital/District Headquarter.
Actual cost restricted to maximum limit of Rs.60/- per quintal  whichever is less for movement of seeds transported within the State from State Capital/District Headquarter to sale outlets/sale counters is being reimbursed.
Hybrid Rice Seed Production Only Rice Hybrid Rice Seed Production assistance Rs.2000/qtls.
Hybrid Rice Seed Distribution assistance Rs2500/qtls.
Creation and Strengthening of Infrastructure Facilities All Crops To create/strengthen infrastructure facilities for production and distribution of quality seeds for the States/State Seeds Corporation financial assistance for creating facilities for seed cleaning, grading, processing, packing and seed storage is being provided in public sector
Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana All Crops All Activities including Seed Infrastructure  Facilities
Assistance for Boosting Seed Production in Private Sector for high volume-low value crops For increasing seed production with a view to enhancing seed replacement rate, particularly in high volume low value crops, credit linked back-ended capital subsidy  is provided @ 25% of project cost up to a maximum limit of Rs. 10.00 lakh on seed infrastructure development relating to seed cleaning, grading, processing, seed treating, packaging, seed storage and seed testing facilities, to private companies, individual entrepreneurs, NGOs and seed co-operatives through commercial banks and National Seed Development Corporation. The Private Companies, individual entrepreneurs, NGOs and seed co-operatives constitute the beneficiaries under this scheme.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta