TWN
Third World Network
Address: 121-S, Jalan Utama, 10450, Penang, MALAYSIA Tel: 60-4-2266728/2266159 Fax: 60-4-2264505
Email:
Website: www.biosafety-info.net, www.twnside.org.sg
Briefings for the Biosafety Protocol
Liability & Redress WG (1)
and MOP2
1
Socio-economic Impacts of Bt Cotton in India
1
By Chee Yoke Heong
Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety allows Parties to take into account socio-economic considerations when making decisions relating to the import of GMOs. In addition, Parties are encouraged to cooperate on research and information exchange on any socio-economic impacts of GMOs, especially on its impact on indigenous and local communities. In this respect, as Bt cotton has been cultivated in India for three years already, particularly by small farmers, it is important to assess its socio-economic impacts.
When Bt cotton, was introduced for commercial cultivation three years ago India, it promised to help fight plant diseases and increase yields. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium whose gene is inserted into cotton seeds to give them resistance against bollworms, which is a common pest in India.
However, since then, numerous studies have been conducted to gauge the performance of Bt cotton in India. The results clearly show that Bt cotton has not lived up to expectations, and instead has led to adverse socio-economic impacts for many small farmers in India.
For instance, the results of a three-year study (2002-2005) of the impact of bollworm resistant Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh in India by the Deccan Development Society and the AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity shows a dismal performance by Bt cotton in the state.
The study, undertaken by scientists Dr Abdul Qayum and Mr Kiran Sakkhari, in collaboration with village based grassroots researchers,
examined the agro-socio-economic impact of three genetically engineered Bt cotton hybrids viz., MECH-12, MECH-162 and MECH 184. These are marketed under the brand name "Bollgard". The study is the outcome of a transparent and open methodology, which involved interviewing farmers, and gathering information from them on a fortnightly basis over the three-year period.
The study "Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh: a three year assessment" captures farmers' engagement with Bt cotton, the resultant economics of the cultivation, and the ultimate desperation when crop failures hit the farmers. There is also available a film "Bt Cotton in AP: a three year fraud", which captures the mood and feelings of the farmers caught up in the false promises of Bt cotton. As PV Satheesh, Director of the Deccan Development Society, puts it, this is "a story of terrible loss, deep pain, and cold anger, leading to explosive violence and even death".
Monsanto Inc, through its joint venture Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd, is responsible for the supply of Bt cotton for commercial cultivation in the country. Monsanto on its website claims that "Bt cotton returns socio- economic benefits to smallholder farmers globally".
The study is an evaluation of this claim by recording the experiences of Bt cotton growers in Andhra Pradesh. It found that:
*Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton, Bollgard, has failed miserably for small farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India, in terms of yields
While the three year average yield from Bollgard cotton for small farmers has remained at around 650 kg per acre, the yield for small farmers under rainfed conditions in 2005 from Bt cotton is just about 535 kg. The same farmers obtained 150 kg more yield from growing non-Bt hybrids under the same conditions as the Bt cotton. Therefore non-Bt cotton has surpassed Bt cotton in terms of yield by nearly 30% with 10% less expense incurred. Therefore Bt cotton has failed the farmers twice over in terms of yield.
*Bollgard cotton did not reduce pesticide use
The difference in the volume of pesticide use by Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton farmers was very small. Bt cotton farmers on an average bought and used Rs.2571 worth of pesticides while the non-Bt cotton farmers bought and used Rs.2766 worth of pesticides over three years. The difference is only around 7% of the pest management costs and 2% of their total cultivation costs.
*Bollgard did not bring profit to farmers
The three year average revealed that the non-Bt cotton farmers earned 60% more than Bt cotton farmers. Instead, in place of profit, Bt cotton (especially the Mahyco Monsanto varieties) brought untold misery to farmers, culminating in violent street protests and the burning of seed outlets in the city of Warangal by disaffected farmers.
*Bollgard did not reduce the cost of cultivation
Farmers had to spend not only 3-4 times more for the Mahyco-Monsanto's proprietary Bollgard seeds but had to take extra care to manure, irrigate and look after their Bt cotton crop. Many farmers, especially in the rainfed areas, spent at least a couple of thousand rupees more per acre in comparison to expenditure on their non-Bt hybrids. On an average, the Bt cotton farmers incurred 12% more costs in cultivating their Bt crops in comparison with their non-Bt fraternity.
*Bollgard did not generate a healthier environment
The researchers felt that a particular type of root rot was being spread by Bollgard cotton. Farmers complained that they were not able to grow other crops after growing Bt cotton because it had infected their soil very badly.This was not the case with farmers growing non-Bt cotton.
A separate study by a group of government experts on Bt cotton in India confirms these findings. This report by the All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project (AICCIP) shows that growing Bt cotton does not necessarily result in greater yields. Instead, it pointed out that farmers practicing integrated pest management benefited in net income and the number of pesticide sprays were reduced by nearly 50%.
The three hybrids released by Monsanto were accorded permission in 2002 for commercial cultivation for a period of three years, till March 2005. Because of the results of numerous studies, both from independent scientists and government bodies, the regulatory authority, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has recently decided not to extend the approval for the commercial cultivation of the three varieties of Mahyco-Monsanto’s Bt cotton hybrids in Andhra Pradesh.
A senior GEAC member was quoted as saying: “This decision was taken on receiving adverse reports from about 20 farmers’ organizations. The Andhra Pradesh government had given adverse reports on the performance of Bt cotton while other states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have sent mixed reports.”
Meanwhile, a group of public interest NGOs have submitted a petition before the Supreme Court of India for a moratorium on the release of all GMOs into the Indian environment and for the need for proper biosafety testing following the negative socio-economic impact of Bt cotton.
The negative experiences of small farmers growing Bt cotton in India should inform the decision making process of countries considering approving Bt cotton. Such socio-economic impacts should be part of the risk assessment of any GMO. Countries should also establish a mechanism to take socio-economic impacts into account and to review previous decisions, Finally, socio-economic damage must be accorded redress and those responsible be held liable, and these issues must be considered under the liability and redress regime currently discussed under Article 27 of the Protocol.
1