Report of a Fact Finding Teams visit to Warangal district

Purpose: To look into the performance of Bt Cotton in Warangal district, as part of the Monitoring & Evaluation Committee [MEC]s effort to monitor Bt Cotton across five states of India1. A Fact Finding Team [FFT] consisting of Shri S Malla Reddy, President, AP Rythu Sangam (a farmers union consisting of more than 300,000 members); Shri Krishna Reddy, President of the Warangal District Unit of AP Rythu Sangam; Shri P Damoder of Sarvodaya Youth Organisation; Shri Rajashekar and Ms Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and some media representatives visited villages and cotton fields in Warangal district and had detailed discussions with farmers on November 6th and 7th, 2005. Context2: When the first reports of an unusual disease on Bt Cotton came out, a Fact Finding Team visited villages and inspected fields in Warangal district on September 9th, 2005 on behalf of the Monitoring & Evaluation Committee [MEC] set up by civil society organizations. At that point of time, the unusual disease was reported from Warangal district on an estimated extent of 50,000 acres. The government soon after this confirmed the disease to be Tobacco Streak Virus [TSV] being spread by the high incidence of sucking pests like thrips, mostly on Bt Cotton and the incidence was confirmed on more than one lakh hectares of Bt Cotton from various districts like Adilabad, Khammam, Guntur and Warangal. The full impact of the disease and high incidence of sucking pests is now being felt by farmers in districts like Adilabad and Warangal, towards the end of the season, at the time of harvest. The issue has come to the notice of local elected leaders and parliamentarians in Warangal district [especially from the Opposition] who wanted the government to come to the rescue of farmers (October 25 th, local papers). Earlier, several senior political leaders and parliamentarians of the district visited villages/fields in Hasanparthi and Sangem blocks, along with officials like the Joint Director of Agriculture [JDA, the senior most agriculture department official in the district] and with media representatives. As per media reports, when the JDA argued that the crop loss was due to climatic conditions and due to excessive incidence of pests and diseases this season, indignant farmers showed the visiting teams crops in neighboring plots which were doing well if the crop loss is due to environmental reasons, how are the adjacent plots performing so well, the farmers demanded to know. The visiting teams reportedly concluded that RCH2 Bt (of Rasi Seeds company, in its second year of commercial cultivation) seeds were defective/adulterated and the officials promised to get the seed samples tested. The political leaders, who estimated the losses to the farmers to be around 400 crores of rupees (US$ 8 millions), wanted the government to put into place adequate compensation mechanisms. The district administration promised to come up with proposals to support farmers in this context. On 27th October, the administration did announce a series of proposed measures in a press conference. The District Collector, along with senior agriculture scientists and officials agreed that almost all the farmers who had grown RCH2Bt Cotton had
1

The Monitoring and Evaluation Committee [MEC] to monitor Bt Cotton across the country was set up by Adivasi Ekta Sangathan, AKRSP, CEAD, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Grameen

Vikas Trust, Greenpeace India, Jan Saahas, Kheti Virasat Mission, Krishnadevaraya Rythu Sankshema Sangam, Krushi, MARI, Navajyothi, Pasumai Tayagam, Prasun, Rashtriya Satyagrah Dal, Sampark, Sarvodaya Youth Organisation, SECURE, VASPS and YUVA
2

Drawn from local media reports/district editions of Eenaadu, Andhra Jyothi etc.

incurred heavy losses. They argued that the only way forward was to try and salvage the crop as much as possible RCH2 Bt hybrid is a 180-195 day duration crop and there are still 20-35 days left, they said. Four recommendations were put forward for this purpose (a) spray 2% DAP; (b) grow intercrops; (c) apply a booster dose of urea of upto ten kilos an acre and (d) spray adequate quantities of monocrotophos on the crop. The government also announced that if needed, monocrotophos would be supplied on subsidy for all the 1.2 lakh acres of RCH2 Bt Cotton, with the estimates showing that the quantity needed would be 40 thousand litres and the cost to be incurred by the government being 1.2 crores of rupees. The District Collector informed that maize seed would be provided on subsidy to be grown as the next crop. The JDA blamed climatic conditions [low rainfall initially and recent heavy downpours] for the losses being witnessed, and the agriculture scientists said that RCH2 is intolerant to such conditions. It was in this context that the FFT, consisting of farmers unions v\isited the district on November 6th and 7th, 2005. FINDINGS: Members of the Fact Finding Team [FFT] visited villages in Atmakur and Sangem blocks and later met with the Joint Director-Agriculture, Dr M Jayaraj, in his office. Media representatives also visited farmers and their fields along with the team. Villages visited include Akkampeta, Sthambampalli, Oorugonda, Durgampeta, Oglapur and Damera. The team also visited the same fields that were visited during the FF visit in September (from Sthambampalli & Oorugonda villages). Some of the farmers met include Ravi s/o Ramulu, Hamsala Reddy, Kumaraswamy s/o Lingareddy, Raju s/o Rajalingam (non-Bt), Ooradi Sammaiah, Erukula Ramana (non-Bt), Vemula Sadaiah, K Prathap Reddy s/o Mallareddy [all in Akkampeta village], B Babu Rao (Sarpanch of Sthambampalli village), K Shankar Rao s/o Manikayya, H Narsing Rao, Kole Sambaiah, K Chander Rao [from Sthambampalli village], Chelupuri Sambaiah, Chelpuri Mallaiah, Chennareddy, Tirupati Reddy [non-Bt], Venkatalaxmi w/o Bhikshapati [fields in Oorugonda/Durgampet villages], Akula Komaraiah (non-Bt), Ravipal Reddy [in Oglapur village], Arrepalli Easwaraiah, Damera Rajaiah (non-Bt), Kumalu, Ashoda Raju, Narayan Reddy, Ravinder Reddy [in Damera village]. Despite many different interventions by farmers (to boost boron/magnesium supply, to take care of sucking pests with chemical sprays and application of more fertilizers), the crop condition is in a bad state. The crop looks very apparently reddened, with individual plants stunted, leaves reddened and shriveled, curled upwards or downwards with very few squares and bolls. These various interventions only meant that the cost of cultivation increased, with none of the farmers reporting that the situation had been brought under control by the use of various products as per recommendations. Farmers are reporting an average of one quintal of cotton harvested so far per acre, with another 2-3 quintals expected per acre. The average cost incurred per acre is around 8-9 thousand rupees, with just the chemicals applied costing around 4 to 5 thousand rupees.

The price being obtained per quintal of cotton sold ranged from a ridiculously low amount of Rs. 700/quintal to Rs. 1400/-/quintal. This means that for a majority of Bt cotton farmers, even the cost of cultivation cannot be recovered from the yields and their market value. In the case of non-Bt Cotton farmers, the average (expected) yields are around 7-8 quintals per acre, with the cost of cultivation being about the same as Bt Cotton farms. Agricultural workers are reporting difficulty in picking Bt Cotton the number of bolls is very low and they are having to search the entire plant carefully, which is time consuming. The number of bolls per plant in various Bt Cotton fields (including MECH hybrids brought from Maharashtra, Bunny Bt, Mallika Bt and Pro-Agro marketed RCH 368 Bt hybrids) is around 15-40, with a majority of the fields showing only 15-20 bolls/plant. There is also high incidence of spodoptera on many of the fields and expensive pesticides had to be used for the control of the pest. All the Bt Cotton fields visited show a high and damaging incidence of sucking pests [thrips, jassids, aphids etc.] and diseases like TSV and angular leaf spot. In the case of some farmers like Vemula Sadaiah of Akkampeta village, the contrast between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton is starkly visible. On the same land, with the same management practices, he had grown Bt Cotton on one side and the non-Bt Cotton seeds supplied for refuge rows on another side. The Bt Cotton side of the farm is visibly red and has stunted growth of plants with very low yields expectable. The damage is most apparent and of a very high, non-recoverable degree on RCH2 Bt Cotton plots, followed by MECH hybrids, Bunny Bt, RCH 368 Bt etc., in that order within the Bt Cotton plots. Farmers are beginning to realize that Bt Cotton hybrids are presenting peculiar problems in terms of diseases and sucking pests year after year and many are beginning to question the way the government permitted the commercial release of the technology.

Discussions with the JDA also revealed that the department of agriculture, unlike in other states, is not monitoring Bt Cotton on the ground and it has been probably left to agriculture scientists to do so. Out of a total cotton area of 146,756 hectares in the district, 91,150 hectares are under different kinds of Bt Cotton, as per the data provided by the JDA. This constitutes 62% of the cotton land. CONCLUSIONS: A monoculture of Bt Cotton, that too of Bollgard brand, has been allowed on a large extent of area this shows a complete lack of foresight and understanding in regulation and crop planning. The vulnerability of such a monoculture to large scale failure in case of pest and disease outbreak is obvious. Even in terms of resistance management, this presents a very poor model as even scientific studies/models of CICR would show. In countries like Australia, when Bt Cotton was introduced, it was done so with a ceiling of only 30% of total cotton land permitted under Bt Cotton. Such a widespread

monoculture was also the result of aggressive marketing adopted by the Bt Cotton companies. However, there was no regulation evident of such marketing. The government is clearly accountable for lack of regulation in this case. The vulnerability of Bt Cotton crop to greater incidence of sucking pests is well recognized. This also implies a greater susceptibility of Bt Cotton to a variety of diseases in this case, it is being reported by scientists that thrips are the vectors for the spread of tobacco streak virus that is causing the stunted growth and reddening of Bt Cotton plants. All of this should have been anticipated by the scientists/companies promoting the crop and the regulators too. As one perceptive farmer, Ravinder Reddy of Damera village, pointed out, farmers have some hope left of salvaging their crop even after an attack of bollworm with proper control measures, the crop can be salvaged for at least the second and subsequent flushes. However, high incidence of sucking pests and diseases means very little chances of recovery for the plant. Bt Cotton, with its non-holistic approach to pest management, means that farmers are faced with a variety of new problems even if the bollworm is indeed controlled. In years like this year, where there has been a very low incidence of bollworm in any case in all crops, Bt Cotton seeds clearly show what they lack and what they can cause is this how seeds for a predominantly small and marginal farmers community should be, a reductionist pest-by-pest approach? There is also much confusion being transmitted to the farmers, adding to their costs. While the department of agriculture analyses the current problem as that resulting from micro-nutrient deficiencies (the soils of Warangal lack certain micro-nutrients like boron and magnesium, we were informed by the JDA; such nutrients are required more in the case of Bt Cotton), the agriculture scientists say that the current problem is because of TSV and the vulnerability of particular Bt Cotton hybrids to adverse weather conditions. Farmers who have tried to adopt recommended practices for both situations have come up with unimpressive results. Citing environmental reasons is ridiculous given that non-Bt Cotton plots are faring well, right next to Bt Cotton plots. Similarly, if Bt Cotton needed other management practices than what the farmers are used to (application of micro-nutrients), why were they not educated beforehand? What kind of proof does the government and do the companies have, to show that they have introduced the Bt Cotton seeds, only after analyzing such differential management requirements and have also educated farmers about it? Have they talked about this in their pre-sales propaganda? Who is to be made accountable now? Why is the administration, which also is supposed to have a District Level Committee [DLC] headed by the District Collector under the EPA rules, coming up with recommendations to be adopted by the farmers only in the last 20-30 days of the crop season? What was done since August, when the first reports of the disease and other problems began pouring in? Monocrotophos, which is now being recommended in the final days of the crop season, is scheduled to be banned from India. Spending 1.2 crores of rupees on this chemical, a Class I product, at this juncture of Monocrotophoss life and the crop season, is suspect. Incidentally, there are very effective and inexpensive methods to control sucking pests (and transmitted diseases) 4

through NPM approaches, which do not require the use of any synthetic pesticides. In any case, the huge subsidy that the government would provide would go to the chemical corporations and not the farmers. What kind of yield increases is the government promising with the measures that it is recommending? Where is the liability on the Bt Cotton companies in all this, given that public funds would be spent to save farmers whereas the companies are going scot-free? There have been views expressed in various quarters that the extent of loss is such that the companies cannot ever hope to compensate the farmers for their losses, leave alone cover for the expected and promised yields. Because of this, the pressure not to give in and pay compensation to even a few farmers is very high on the companies [lest thousands of other farmers line up with claims]. The companies would do their best to deny that their technology or seed has got anything to do with the current situation. Should companies be allowed to sell more than what they can be made accountable for? Did the companies not think about such a situation before they went in for a technology, given that the current situation was a distinct possibility? Did they inform farmers about the serious shortcomings of particular hybrids and the Bt technology? This is also a valuable lesson for all those Indian companies lining up at the doors of Monsanto to get the Bollgard gene sub-licensed to them at huge costs. On the one hand is the huge amount of royalty that the American multinational is bound to collect from these small Indian companies (who have enjoyed some amount of credibility with cotton farmers so far, in different pockets of the country) and on the other hand is the distinct possibility of the crop failing for a variety of reasons, and therefore, compensation to be paid to farmers. How are these companies going to survive in such a situation?

DEMANDS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Admit that the current situation is a problem resulting from the Bt technology this is a case of monoculture crops that are vulnerable to sucking pests and therefore, higher incidence of disease, as well as unpredictable and unusual incidence of pests/diseases. Acknowledge the differences clearly being seen between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton fields on the ground Make a comprehensive assessment of the extent of losses and all the reasons for the same Stop providing recommendations which would imply more costs to farmers unless such recommendations are accompanied by guarantees of better results; advocate non-pesticidal, inexpensive and effective ways of controlling sucking pests Resolve the differences between the agriculture department and research scientists in their analysis and recommendations Make such government (agriculture research) officials who have recommended particular brands of Bt Cotton with farmers liable for the losses seen now Put into place immediately liability mechanisms where the responsible companies and those providing the technology pay adequate compensation to farmers. Stop Bt Cotton approvals in the state of Andhra Pradesh and support nonchemical, non-GE alternatives which are fetching very good results for farmers who are practicing such alternatives.