Harvest of controversy,GM CROPS

Decisions on genetically modified crops cannot be left to experts; technicalities need to be supplemented by answers to people’s anxieties

A quirky anthropologist once exclaimed: “Biotechnology is sheer drama.” He explained his cryptic headline by saying all great contemporary philosophical and ethical debates intersect around it. He added that the city might be the basis for the 21st century imagination but it is the fate of Indian agriculture that would trigger some of the great dilemmas of the century. The sociologist added that it was time to see science as political, and claimed that our scientists like Madhav Gadgil, M.S. Swaminathan or Pushpa Bhargava were as critical to political theory as Ashis Nandy or Rajni Kothari. Each has mediated the relation between science and democracy, and each of them knows that nothing is more central to the fate of democracy than the debates around biotechnology and genetic engineering. This essay will try to outline the nature of this debate and link it up to the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) decision to field test a range of genetically modified crops.

Entry of Bt cotton

The public debates on GM began with the unannounced entry of Bt cotton in Gujarat, where the farmers had grown 21,000 acres of Bt cotton. It was an ironic beginning where an act of smuggling inaugurated the transfer of technology. Monsanto had no idea of this development and was as stunned as the government of India. The Bt cotton debate began as a downloaded debate where Indian journalists and movements discovered the implications of such an introduction. The first concern was whether Bt would enter the food chain and the second centred around empowerment. For centuries, farmers had been custodians of seeds but now they had to obtain seeds from multinationals. Expertise which was once located in the farmer was more focused in laboratories, many of which belonged to private firms.

Two other issues entered the first phase of the debate. One was a memorable battle between two champions of agriculture. Vandana Shiva attacked biotechnology and genetic manipulation claiming that it stunted diversity, disempowered the farmer and skewed intellectual property rights in favour of the multinational. Ms Shiva’s argument centred around alternative forms of farming while Gail Omvedt argued that in this age of liberalisation the farmer needed choice, the freedom to choose the kind of farming he wished to pursue and the seeds he wanted to pick.

The second phase of the debate arose over the introduction of Bt Brinjal. By the second phase, civil society and farmers’ movements had entered the fray in a more systematic manner and were demanding wider debates. The groups argued that the question was not a mere debate about technology. It was a debate about the nature of decision-making especially when experts’ decisions affected livelihoods, ways of life and the very notion of agency in citizenship. One had to answer whether citizenship was to remain a passive act of consuming science or whether the citizen as scientist was to have a say in technologies modifying life and livelihood. The groups argued that if science was public knowledge devoted to creating public goods, it should be subject to a public debate. This required that transparency and responsibility be built into every stage. NGOs showed that there was an arrogance to Indian science pointing out that science itself had changed, moving from certainty to risk. In the age of risk sciences like genetic engineering, one could not always predict whether a technology was safe. Safety had become a “bracketed” term where consequences were not fully predictable. Such new technologies required prudential rather than promethean behaviour, not the Pollyanna-like attitude of our scientists. The movements had a bit of governmental luck in the presence of Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests.

Mr. Ramesh summoned the various scientific academies to prepare a report, and simultaneously asked the Centre for Environment Education to arrange for a major colloquium on biotechnology inviting all the major stakeholders. The open hearings were a major breakthrough in the relation of science and democracy. A cross between a carnival and a protest meeting, the debates led to a moratorium on Bt Brinjal. A whole Pandora’s box of questions remain to be answered. There were questions of method. How objective is an evaluation, how safe is safe? Does the control of seeds by multinationals create a marked asymmetry in knowledge and power between the scientific multinational and the farmer? Can private science work for public benefit, and who decides? The questions of food chains, seed prices, contamination, certainty, and intellectual property created a new thesaurus of questions around biotechnology.

On July 18, the Genetic Engineering and Evaluation Committee gave a green signal for field trials of a whole range of genetically modified crops. This assembly line of crops included rice, mustard, cotton, chickpeas and brinjal. Two questions were immediately raised. Was such a range of testing required? Second, how objective was GEAC as an institution?

Pushpa Bhargava, former director of CCMB (Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology), questioned the permission given to import GM-based soya bean oil and then went on to question the bona fides of GEAC as an independent evaluation committee of experts.

The nature of decisions in such “expert evaluation” committees needs to be discussed. One has to ask how stakeholder sensitive they are in terms of representation. Secondly, one needed an independent agency to evaluate data, especially private. Rituals of evaluation are part of the integrity of expertise. Thirdly, one has to ask about the method of evaluation itself. Can a small group of bureaucrats decide for the future? How do they explain the framework of that analysis? Can a small group like GEAC explain the ethical and political burden of such a decision? One thing is clear: the GEAC carry claim like the father of atom bomb Robert Oppenheimer did, that the bomb was a “technical answer to a technical question.” Bt crops grow beyond technical issues. They cannot be treated as technical fixes to social problems.

In fact, we should treat the protest by the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU) as a collective questionnaire of anxieties and expectations. The BKU raised the following doubts. First, any democracy, any nation-state, has to raise issues of not merely territoriality but also seed sovereignty. Once Monsanto patents the seed, in its search for profit, who decides on ownership? Secondly, what is the new ethics they follow? As transgenic seeds can contaminate a food chain, what is the notion of corporate liability? There are laws for Intellectual Property but there seem to be no laws for corporate violations of nature. The idea of corporate social responsibility is too weak to address these questions. Already in nuclear energy, the nuclear liability clause caps corporate liability. The question is: can we afford such an equivalent system or do we need new ideas of law and ethics?

 The need of the hour is a new social contract where nature and technology are reworked constitutionally 

Food security & sustainability

Even technical questions do not sound strictly technical. How do we determine safety? Does safety include livelihood security of farmers or even the question of eco-system damage? Given the current nature of complexity, a responsibility as a simple cause and effect diagram may be difficult to fix. We need concepts which combine food security and food sustainability.

There is also the question of problem solving. C.S. Holling and other ecologists have advocated the idea of Panarchy. Panarchy like hierarchy is sensitive to levels but while a reductive hierarchic solution goes right down, panarchy argues that different levels of a problem require different solutions. Ecological science seems to suggest that genetic modification can no longer be touted as a single solution to agricultural problems.

All these questions demand or suggest the necessity of a different framework of debate. Firstly we need a nested series of hearings, debates, academic seminars where data is analysed independently. Secondly, the voice of dissenting scientists needs to be listened to and responded. Thirdly, decisions cannot be expert decisions — technicalities need to be supplemented by answering citizen anxieties.

Finally, the BJP government, instead of rushing into decisions, must set up a framework of debate. Delays while debates and tests are analysed need not be embarrassing. The need for speed is not obvious. In fact what is necessary is a new social contract where nature and technology are reworked constitutionally. As a democracy, we have to adjudicate between different ideas of farming, evaluate different kinds of responsibility, ethics and accountability. Bowdlerising GM crops is the worst thing any government can do. In its urge to satisfy the corporation, it cannot ignore the needs of farmers, the future and the ideals of our civilisation.

UP LOWER 2013 PRE RESULT

UPPCS LOWER 2013 (PRE) RESULT OUT. CONGRATS TO ALL WHO QUALIFY THIS

SEE YOUR RESULT AT

http://uppsc.up.nic.in/View_Notices.aspx?ID=news&N=196

upsc announces cpf marksheet 2013

check your marks in cpf 2013

http://www.upsc.gov.in/Query/cpf/cpf_wq_marks_query.htm

PM addresses scientists at 86th ICAR Foundation Day

• Two-fold objective for agricultural scientists – enable farmers to feed India and the world; and earn a good livelihood • PM gives ICAR mantras of "Kam zameen, kam samay, zyaada upaj" and "per drop, more crop" • Create talent pool of young, educated and progressive farmers, and agricultural research scholars

The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, has exhorted agricultural scientists to work towards a two-fold objective of enabling the Indian farmer to (a) feed India and the world; (rashtra aur vishva ka pet bhare) and (b) earn a good income in the process. (kisan ki jeb bhare). Addressing the agricultural scientific community on the 86th Foundation Day of ICAR, at the NASC Complex in Delhi, the Prime Minister – who was earlier greeted with a "standing ovation" – called upon the audience to give a "standing ovation" to the millions of Indian farmers, who, he said, have played a huge role in changing India`s fortunes. Speaking after giving away ten awards for excellence in agricultural research, Shri Narendra Modi asked the scientists to elaborate upon their research in simple terms, so that it could be understood by the farmers, and they could be convinced to try out new products and initiatives. Noting that farming in India is hereditary, and practices are difficult to change, the Prime Minister said that change can happen only when the farmer is convinced about its efficacy. Therefore, agricultural scientists must - in accordance with changing circumstances of climate, water and soil - help the farmer get convinced about their initiatives. The Prime Minister said that the water-cycle has to be managed according to the changing weather-cycle. The Prime Minister asked ICAR to set goals for their centenary, which is 14 years away. He said the work of ICAR should have two mantras: • "Kam zameen, kam samay, zyaada upaj" – Less land, less time, more crop • "per drop, more crop" He called upon ICAR to set its sights on achieving self-sufficiency in edible oil, and improving protein content and availability of pulses. Since demand is increasing, and land available will not rise, the focus has to be on soil fertility, the Prime Minister noted. Giving the example of Mahatma Gandhi, and his commitment towards water conservation, the Prime Minister asked ICAR to work for more efficient ways of water conservation and irrigation (jal sanchay se jal seenchan). Shri Modi also said that in the field of animal husbandry, special efforts need to be made to raise the level of milk productivity. To meet the challenge of "lab to land" – taking scientific research to successful interventions – the Prime Minister exhorted agricultural colleges to start radio stations. Noting that farmers listen to radio a lot, he said radio programmes run by college students would prove extremely beneficial. He called for a digitized database of all agricultural research in the country. He said young educated and progressive farmers; and agricultural research scholars can together form a talent pool in all districts of the country. The Prime Minister also called for a blue revolution that would extend the benefits of scientific research to the fisheries sector. He also called for greater research and promotion of coastal seaweed, and Himalayan herbal medicinal plants.

New urban development initiatives to address shortcomings of JNNURM

Smart Cities should aim at enhancing quality of urban life, says Shri M.Venkaiah Naidu Efficient service delivery through improved governance to be focus of Smart Cities Need for City specific long term strategic plans stressed

Learning from the experience of implementation of Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the new urban development initiatives should aim at improving the quality of urban life in the country by addressing the chronic urban problems and by going beyond provision of just infrastructure. This broad view has emerged at the two day long brain storming session chaired by the Minister of Urban Development and Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation Shri M Venkaiah Naidu. During the discussions that concluded today, various aspects of urban development including the Smart Cities initiative were taken up for critical examination. Union Minister of Power Shri Piyush Goyal, Members of Parliament – Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy, Shri Jyothiraditya Scindia, Shri Baijayant Panda and Shri Rajiv Chandrasekhar also shared their perspectives. Shri Shankar Aggarwal, Secretary (Urban Development), Smt Anita Agnihotri, Secretary (Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation), senior officials of the two ministries besides experts participated in the two day long deliberations. While reviewing the progress on conceptualization of the ‘Smart Cities’ initiative, Shri Naidu stressed that the focus of this project should be to enhance quality of urban life through an integrated approach to urban planning and execution besides ensuring ‘inclusivity’. Shri Piyush Goyal suggested that solid waste management, cleanliness etc., should be addressed on priority for immediate impact. Referring to development of smart cities, he said that four or five such projects could be offered to states which have ready land availability. Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudy noted that the six dimensions of smart cities should be smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment, smart ecology, smart people and smart living. He said based on the learnings of experience of some Asian and other developed countries, India specific model need to be evolved. Shri Baijayant Panda observed that emerging towns should be included under Smart Cities initiative aimed at energy efficiency, clustering of infrastructure and efficient management and governance ensuring inter-sectoral linkages. Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia suggested development of ‘counter magnet cities’ to spread urbanization to new areas. He noted that state governments need to play a pro-active role in addressing urban challenges. He suggested that small towns and cities that are not handicapped by ‘legacy’ issues like congestion and limited land availability could be chosen first to be developed as smart cities. Shri Rajiv Chandrasekhar said that though JNNURM had laudable objectives, it failed to develop a single ‘model city’ and this experience should be taken into account while devising new urban development schemes. He said, under JNNURM, central government ended up merely supporting asset creation. He suggested that the central government should play the role of a ‘catalyst’ in the new scheme of things. He stressed the need for city specific long term statutory development plans for assured outcomes. Shri Chandrasekhar also stressed the need to go beyond provision of infrastructure to ensure efficient delivery of public services to the urban people. He noted that the spirit of 74th Amendment to the Constitution empowering urban local bodies should be realized in full measure for urban development initiatives to be meaningful. As a starting point for the discussions, Shri Shankar Aggarwal, Secretary (Urban Development), in his presentation outlined that a ‘Smart City’ could be one with technology based governance that enables efficient public services and has 24 x 7 water and power supply, 100% sewerage, drainage and solid waste management facilities besides top class infrastructure. He further noted that to mobilize the required resources, funding through Public-Private Partnership, Multi-lateral agencies, Viability Gap Funding by the central government can be explored. After detailed deliberations, Shri Venkaiah Naidu directed the Ministry officials to prepare Notes for Cabinet at the earliest, based on the learnings of JNNURM implementation, inputs/suggestions received during the two day brainstorming session and from other sources. He suggested that there could be two different schemes – one for renewal of 500 urban habitations and the other for ‘Smart Cities’. The 500 habitations are to be provided with safe drinking water, sewerage management and use of recycled water, solid waste management and digital connectivity as mentioned in the General Budget for 2014-15.

Starting over

Swaraj’s message was clear: Delhi wants to depart from past practice of missing opportunities.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj chose not to make lengthy statements on her visit. But she emphasised at every meeting that India’s new government was determined to take the relationship with Nepal to a new level. As Swaraj left Nepal after 40 hours, she had earned enough trust in a country where the perceived “Indian high-handedness” is a matter of distaste. She was able to build a positive atmosphere and enough goodwill for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit, scheduled for August.

Apart from her oratory and ability to strike a chord in individuals, she has had a long association with prominent Nepali Congress leaders, including Prime Minister Sushil Koirala, given her past as a Socialist Party activist before she joined the BJP. She didn’t breach protocol while meeting Nepali dignitaries and leaders, in a welcome departure from the recent past. “India is not the big brother, it is just an elder brother,” she said.

Koirala praised India for its “generous and positive gesture”, while Kamal Thapa, chairman of the pro-monarchy and pro-Hindu Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal, made an appeal to make Modi’s visit free of controversy. The atmosphere on the eve of Swaraj’s visit was charged with distrust of India, especially because the draft agreement on cooperation in the power sector — that India had sent, suggesting 100 per cent investment by India or Indian entities — was viewed as New Delhi’s move to monopolise Nepal’s water resources. Barely eight hours before her arrival, Koirala, after consultations with three major political outfits, decided the challenge at the moment for Nepal and India was credibility, given their failure to execute past promises on development and hydro-power.

“Let India build a model and modest hydro-project, a road in mid-hill, and postal roads in the plains on a time-bound basis, instead of going for cost- and time-consuming mega projects, and that will create a situation for larger partnership in future,” Maoist chief Prachanda told The Indian Express. He recalled how the 250 MW Naumure hydro project, which India’s then external affairs minister and current president, Pranab Mukherjee, promised as a “gift” to Nepal in 2008, was dumped as “not feasible” subsequently. Swaraj took all of these into account, promised continuous high-level interaction at the political level henceforth, and the execution of promised projects at a pace Nepal desired. She also emphasised that India wanted Nepal stable, prosperous and secure.

With a slight deviation from the previous government’s stance, Swaraj said that while India wanted “an inclusive constitution acceptable to all sides”, the responsibility to decide upon theelements of the constitution, the structure of state and governance, etc rested solely with the people of Nepal. The message was clear: India had no favourites in Nepal, nor was Delhi going to be party to Nepal’s internal politics.

But messages and diplomatic gestures on such visits are usually made on a trial basis and reviewed when the two sides get down to business. A widely circulated post on social media in Nepal, with hostile comments, relates to a passage from Mission R&AW by R.K. Yadav, a former officer, which claims that Indira Gandhi as prime minister was planning to break up Nepal — separating the Terai — after she had successfully merged Sikkim with India. He further claims that her imposing of the Emergency and her subsequent electoral defeat got in the way. Aggressive slogans in the Terai, some political parties’ perceived proximity to the Indian establishment — some of them even claiming the Terai to be an “internal colony of Nepal” — and the issue of the power sector draft agreement dominated the political debate, with leftist groups, particularly the Maoists, raking up the question of “Indian designs”.

The sudden exit of the monarchy, without a credible alternative in place, created a big political vacuum and India’s involvement in Terai politics, China watchers say, created the pretext for China’s entry in Nepal on the current scale. In the absence of a stable institution, China found no ally to talk to about its real grievances and Terai politics, influenced by India, gave the north the reason to ask: “Why is India interested in having a buffer within a buffer?” After that, China developed its interest in many other areas, including water resources and power, which Beijing stayed away from earlier. From the Indian perspective, things will get clearer when Modi arrives in August. Swaraj has, meanwhile, created trust on the ground and shown interest in departing from the past of missed opportunities.

Balance of responsibility

in 2008, India and the US reached an agreement on nuclear cooperation that was hailed in many quarters — by nuclear suppliers and vendors in the US, India and across the world — as an opportunity to facilitate the rapid expansion of India’s civilian nuclear programme. India envisaged expanding its civilian nuclear programme from its current capacity of 4.8 GW to 30 GW by 2030. To fully engage with international nuclear suppliers, however, India needed to harmonise certain laws, particularly those addressing civil nuclear liability in the case of an accident, with international norms.

Internationally, the fundamental nuclear liability principles include: strict liability, relieving victims of the need to prove fault or negligence; exclusive liability, ensuring that the operator is the only entity liable to compensating for damage (even if caused by a supplier or vendor); financial protection covering the operator’s liability, ensuring that funds are available to compensate victims; limitation of operator liability in time and amount, enabling the operator to set up a cost-effective mechanism to cover the liability amount; a single court for victims’ claims, providing consistent treatment in the recognition and execution of judgments.

India’s nuclear liability law, enacted in 2010, contains elements that address each of the above principles.  However, Section 17(b) grants the operator the right to seek recourse from suppliers and vendors (only after the operator compensates victims) if the accident was the result of a patent or latent defect in equipment or substandard services. This provision is fundamentally different from those in nearly all other jurisdictions. It is a significant difference, at least from the perspective of the international nuclear industry.

From a policy perspective, sophisticated parties may agree to cap liability or provide a right of recourse under a contract. This is a perfectly acceptable mechanism when the only damage is economic harm to one or both of the parties to the contract (such as damage to a reactor in the event of an accident). In that case, there is no need for a legislation. The situation is different when the victim of an accidental release is not in a contractual relationship with either the vendor or the operator but is a member of the public. In that case, the transaction costs are prohibitive — the vendor and operator cannot negotiate with each potentially affected party separately. There is then a need for legislative action (for example, liability caps, financial protection, a single court) to reduce transaction costs to an acceptable level. The legislation should create proper incentives to ensure that the entity with the greatest ability to influence accident risk adopts an optimal activity level. For nuclear power, this full internalisation ofresponsibility occurs when the operator is exposed to the activity’s full costs. This is because the operator is responsible for selecting the supplier/ vendor, qualifying equipment, overseeing construction and the installation of equipment, choosing maintenance priorities, monitoring performance, repairing equipment and operating the plant.  In short, it is the operator who is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant.

In the context of India’s nuclear liability law, the right to seek recourse from suppliers and vendors has two significant implications. First, it increases the costs of nuclear projects. Second, it alters the operator’s incentives by shifting some responsibility for safety to vendors. The first implication is fundamentally a matter of price. Because India’s liability regime is different from the international regime, it creates more uncertainty (or risk) for the vendor that must be accommodated in the contract price. And, when choosing between a half-century-old approach used internationally and an untested liability provision, a rational company will demand a significant price increase to accommodate the unique provision. This dynamic, which is far from surprising, is a major reason why negotiations remain at an impasse.

Nuclear vendors are also concerned that the right of recourse fundamentally alters the balance of responsibility between the operator and the vendor. Not only should a regulator and the public be able to demand accountability from a single entity (the operator), but the operator must also take responsibility for the actions of its suppliers and vendors. The operator should, and must, uncover latent or patent defects before equipment is put into service. Anything less would be an abdication of its responsibility to protect public safety. Vendors, therefore, are justified in being concerned that a right to recourse creates the wrong incentive, by giving an operator a mechanism for shifting responsibility from its role in an accident to the vendor. This concern is probably compounded by the fact that the sole operator in India, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, is government-owned and therefore would have the bully pulpit and motivation to blame a foreign vendor in the unlikely event of an accident.

At a recent Nuclear Law Association meeting in New Delhi, a number of participants raised questions on the effects of the liability law on the expansion of nuclear energy in India and on public acceptance of nuclear power.  Some hailed the law as a paradigm shift in nuclear liability, ensuring that vendors have a stake in the safe operation of plants. But the benefits of vendors having a stake in safe operation are overstated. The international nuclear supply chain is transparent. Reputations matter. The loss of business associated with the discovery of a defect could cripple a company just as quickly as the financial effects of the right of recourse. And the right of recourse does not result in additional compensation for victims, so there is no direct “public” benefit. More importantly, providing a means for the operator to shift responsibility for an accident ultimately undermines safety by not exposing the operator tothe full cost of any failure to safely design, construct, operate and maintain a plant. This increases the risk, even if only in a small way, that operators will accept items of dubious quality and provenance, rely more heavily on the assurances of contractors and vendors without independent verification and treat the safety of systems, structures and components as someone else’s responsibility.

All of this does not mean that a change to India’s liability law is necessary, but it does suggest the contours of any possible solution. One solution, of course, would be to change the law to fully align with international principles. But it might also include a process for endorsing the absence of defects or confirming acceptable service. Or, though less ideal, the operator could purchase an insurance policy that would indemnify vendors in the event of a claim under Section 17(b). The last two options ensure that the operator is exposed to the full costs of generating nuclear power, though in a somewhat roundabout way.

Ultimately, the tangible benefits of nuclear power (efficient baseload power, climate, economic development) outweigh its costs, including the low probability of accidents. But broad nuclear development will only take place when there is a stable liability regime that all parties find acceptable. That will not happen until the economic and regulatory framework for nuclear power creates complementary and efficient incentives.