Readers may recall that AgriMatters has been commenting on the pros and cons of Agriculture Outsourcing. This option has also been considered by the Empowered Committee of Chief Minsters on Food Security and Agriculture, and the Union Agriculture Minster faced a barrage of questions on this subject at the annual Economic Editors Conference in New Delhi a few weeks ago. The issue has become so germane that it was also discussed in the World Food Security Meeting held at Rome in mid October where a healthy debate broke out between the proponents and critics of AO. While proponents argued that AO was mutually beneficial to both the host and the investor countries, several NGOs raised the issue of prior informed consent on behalf of indigenous communities whose lands were being ‘leased out’ or sold to corporates at terms which were neither equitable, nor ecologically sustainable in the long run. Large scale commercial farming, it was alleged, does tremendous damage to the natural ecologies of the areas in which it was undertaken without appropriate compensation to those who lived in and belonged to the region. Fortunately, a consensus was arrived at, under which member countries agreed to adopt a set of Voluntary Guidelines (VGs) on Responsible Agriculture Interventions (RAIs). Therefore even as India mulls over the policy on AO, it has accepted that it will abide by the VGs, which, inter alia will ensure that the process does deprive indigenous communities of their livelihood opportunities and access to natural resources and their traditional practices without alternatives which offer better options and sustainable food security, not just in the short run, but also in the medium to long term. In other words, it had to be more than just and fair compensation for loss of current property rights, and had to factor the concept of inter- generational equity.
Having said this, it must be pointed out that most of the critique refers obliquely to China which has entered into AO in a big way, and in a manner which is brazen. Backed with the sovereign might of the state, the Chinese AO model is more like a factory operation – within the walled /barbed wire enclosures everything – from seeds, equipment, machinery and workforce is Chinese. This meant that local communities were not only denied access even as farm workers, the damage to local ecological systems was quite pronounced. With such large scale movement of Chinese labour into these areas, conflicts with local populations was perhaps inevitable. Indian investments abroad have been more in terms of ‘managing’ large tracts of land, with just a few top managers coming from India. In several cases, it has only been a transfer of ownership – the management and workforce has continued to be local. One reason for this is that thanks to NREGA, labour rates in India (in terms of PPP) are rising, and coupled with the Right to Food, it does not make sense for unskilled labour to work on AO abroad. It is true that Indians are working as farm labour in EU, but they are working at seven to ten Euros an hour!
The issue therefore is: why are countries in Latin America, Central Asia, Asia Pacific Islands, and parts of Africa looking for Indian partners? Your columnist can vouchsafe that countries are vying with each other to get Indian investments in Agriculture. The primary reason is that they are looking to India, not just as an Agriculture superpower, but also as the world’s largest consumer of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and sugar. Thus the produce through AO can be traded directly, rather than through commodity exchanges which at times bring down the margins for the primary producer. This is definitely the reason why Latin America and central Asian republics are looking to Indian agripreneurs. They are also aware that India’s need for these commodities is going to rise in the years to come, and that India has the resources, and the political commitment to ensure food security to its entire people.
How should India go about it?
First, India must realise that our policy to AO will have to be country specific. What holds true for a country with sparse population and large tracts of uninhabited lands ( Uruguay, Paraguay , Chile ) is not true for countries in Africa where ‘hunger’ is a real issue, and where prime agricultural land is used for growing ‘export commodities’ rather than corn to feed the local population. India must abide by the basic principle that the first rights to produce of belong to the local community. In these countries, India must step in with all technology at its command to assist these countries to build their domestic food security. Only surplus food, (after keeping a strategic grain reserve) should be exported for foreign exchange. Nations can do without foreign exchange, but now without food.
Secondly, India must clearly map which countries are best suited to ensure long term supplies of edible oil, sugar and pulses. As per current projections, over 125 million hectares of land is available for AO, and India’s critical requirements of these commodities can safely be met from a fraction of this land mass. This should, however, be dispersed to ensure that sudden climatic changes, cyclones, pest attacks, or forest fires do not affect the stability. This is where some of the larger PSUs and co-operatives may step in from a strategic perspective.
The third intervention that India can make is even more ambitious. This is to help third countries which have economic resources, and the political will to achieve domestic food security, to achieve the same through AO by offering professional technical assistance. Thus India can help Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE to achieve their critical food security reserves in Latin America by offering technical assistance. The network of Indian agricultural universities and NAR system is eminently qualified to undertake this task, and can do this on terms which are more competitive than their European or North American counterparts…
Last week, AgriMatters took up the potential of AO for India – both for itself, and as a technical provider of AO services for countries in West Asia. In the final analysis, ‘food security’ is of prime importance, and governments which fail to ensure adequate access to food and nutrition for their citizens lose their moral right and popular support to govern. Thus the French Revolution was more about hunger than about political rights, and the breakdown of the massive Soviet Empire was also because of the inability of the Soviet system to generate enough wheat, and their critical dependence on the US for their wheat supplies. India had faced a similar situation in the early sixties, when the infamous PL 480 was used by the US to influence India’s foreign policy options. India has of course moved a long way from then, and is now on the verge of becoming an important player in the global commodities market – both on account of its position as one of the top producer, and also because it tops in the global consumption of major agricultural commodities.
Leveraging Surpluses – A new role abroad!
Thus the next big issue for India is to manage the large surpluses – and leverage these – both for improving access to food and livelihoods, not just in India, but other countries as well, which have faced similar issues in the past. The experience gained by India in the last two decades in creating rural infrastructure – roads, water bodies, community forests, housing for the poor, schools and rural markets – on ‘food based employment’ can , and should be shared with countries in Africa. It is far more important for us as a nation to lend our expertise to those who need it, rather than devote all our diplomatic tact in trying for a seat in the UNSC. In any case, the UN is losing out to other global organizations – the WTO, the World Bank, the G 20, and regional associations – in terms of influence, stature and economic clout. Moreover, it is others should be campaigning for a seat for India, rather than pursuing it. There are many other ways in which we can influence the lives of people in the world, other than a UNSC seat. India ought to open bi-lateral and multilateral talks with regions and areas which are food deficit, or which are rich in resources for global food production. The Indian model of rural development, based, as it is, on non-capital intensive infrastructure projects which have a direct impact on production and productivity is a fine exemplar, which has not been given its due global recognition. In fact, even within our own country, we have not made a systematic study of the impact of EGS programmes on enhancing food production.
A Global Role for the Krishi Bhawan
This also means that the Ministries in Krishi Bhawan, especially the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and dairy, Food, Rural Development and Consumer Affairs draw up a strategic intervention plan for a new role in the global economic order. The lead may have to be taken by the DAC, which has the experience of successfully implementing the Green Revolution, and of late the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, which is an omnibus programme covering all aspects of agriculture – from research projects of the University system to farm equipment and post harvest management. The Ministry has also been intervening in the markets through MIS and PSS operations, and is aware of how to determine costs and prices. In fact India’s support to other nations must extend to supporting their programmes of price discovery and price support. As in the case of the Green Revolution, what has to be on offer is a Technology Plus approach. Thus NABARD could offer services on formation of SHGs, farmer clubs and extension services in the financial sector, the Agriculture Insurance Company on Risk Mitigation, IFFCO on fertilizers and nutrient inputs, the Micro Irrigation Mission on sprinkler and Drip technology. This well thought strategy, with appropriate linkages for the private sector (seeds, farm equipment, nutrients, etc) will have to be articulated at different forums in the host country and linkages forged with local communities, farmers, corporates after some time has been spent in just studying the way in which the agricultural economies of these countries is governed.
Can this be done from New Delhi?
Impossible If India wants a new role in global agriculture; it has to establish outposts in each of the regions that it wishes to exercise its influence. Africa may therefore require up to two officials in our embassies – at Pretoria and Addis Ababa – to co-ordinate the efforts across Africa, and also present the entire range of opportunities that India can offer, many of which are in the public sector domain. As mentioned earlier, here the effort is to ensure food security and livelihood opportunities. On the other hand, our aim in Latin America is to source crops like pulses, oilseeds and sugar. Here the co-ordination will be with the public sector, and the private trade channels which import these commodities into the country. There is also need to establish an office in the UAE, which is now emerging as an important economic hub – and also because West Asian nations are trying their level best to ensure food security for their populations. Yet another office is required in Europe, for this is where all the standards are now being set – and many of them are not about safety, but about restrictive trade.
Indian agriculture has done well for itself. It is now time for us to put our best foot forward, and show the world that Indian agriculture can share its success story. And sharing this success story can get us the requisite goodwill in the comity of nations, and perhaps a place in the UNSC!