Andhra Pradesh farmers indict pesticides and intensive farming

The Prajateerpu – a citizens’ jury workshop held in Andhra Pradesh (AP) – severely criticized the new policy for agriculture and rural futures developed as part of the government of AP’s Vision 2020. Farmers were extremely critical of the promotion of pesticides and agro-chemicals, and their consequences, and also rejected GM technology. Michel Pimbert and Tom Wakeford report(1).

The Andhra Pradesh Citizens’ Jury listen to testimony from an expert witness.

Andhra Pradesh and the Prajateerpu 
Andhra Pradesh (AP) is India’s fifth largest state, with about 70 per cent of the population engaged in agriculture (some 10 million households). Over 80 per cent of those are small and marginal farmers and landless labourers who own a mere 35% (3.5 million hectares) of the total 10 million hectares of cultivated land. These farmers also own around 70% of the 20 million cattle in the area.
    In all agricultural settings across AP, women play a greater role than men in agricultural work and food preparation, looking after almost 80% of the day-to-day livestock management.

The citizens’ jury
The central component of this exercise in democracy through deliberation was a citizens’ jury made up of representatives of small and marginal farmers from AP, small traders and food processors and consumers. To reflect the reality of rural Andhra Pradesh, most of the jury members were small and marginal farmers and included indigenous (known in India as ‘adivasi’) people. Over two thirds of the jury members were women.

Visions of the future
Jury members were presented with three different scenarios. Each was advocated by key opinion-formers who attempted to show the logic behind the scenario. It was up to the jury to decide which of the three scenarios was most likely to provide them with the best opportunities to enhance their livelihoods, food security and environment twenty years from now.
    Vision 1: Vision 2020. This scenario was put forward by Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister and backed by a loan from the World Bank. It proposes to consolidate small farms and rapidly increase mechanisation and modernisation. Production enhancing technologies such as genetic modification will be introduced in farming and food processing, reducing the number of people on the land from 70% to 40% by 2020 (see Box 1).
    Vision 2: An Export-based Cash Crop Model of Organic Production. This vision of the future is based on proposals within International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) and the International Trade Centre United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) / World Trade Organisation (WTO) for environmentally friendly farming linked to national and international markets. This vision is also increasingly driven by the demand of supermarkets in the North to have a cheap supply of organic produce and comply with new eco-labelling standards.
    Vision 3: Localised food systems. A future scenario based on increased self-reliance for rural communities, low external input agriculture, the re-localisation of food production, markets and local economies – with long distance trade in goods that are surplus to production or not produced locally. Support for this vision in India can be drawn from the writings of Mahatma Gandhi, indigenous peoples’ organisations and some farmers’ unions in India and elsewhere.
    Each vision was presented through videos. 

Expert witnesses
Following the video presentations, expert witnesses presented the case for a particular vision. Members of the AP Government, the corporate sector and civil society organisations were given equal amounts of time to present their case to the jury. Jury members were allowed to cross question expert witnesses after their presentation.

Jury deliberations
Jury members considered all three visions, assessing pros and cons on the basis of their own knowledge, priorities and aspirations. The different contributions of invited expert witnesses was also important for the jury’s deliberations. The jury members were not asked to simply choose between vision 1, 2 or 3. Instead, outsider facilitation encouraged them to critically assess the viability and relevance of each scenario for the future. They could choose a particular pre-formed vision OR combine elements of all three futures and derive their own unique vision(s). 

An oversight panel
The jury/scenario workshop process was overseen by an oversight panel – a group of external observers. It was their role to ensure that the process was fair, unprejudiced, trustworthy and that it was not captured by any interest group.

Chemicals
In verdicts expressed at the end of the citizen’s jury, farmers desired an agriculture ‘that does not need toxic chemical pesticides’(2), that is diverse rather than based on monocultures. Jury members expressed concerns about agrochemicals in farming, several mentioning mild to severe forms of pesticide poisoning experienced on a daily basis, or describing the inferior food quality of crops grown with high chemical fertiliser inputs. All referred to the debts of farmers on the pesticides treadmill, and the many farmer suicides in AP (see Box 2). The farmers concluded that the AP government policies were socially and ecologically irresponsible. The following exchange between a farmer and the AP Deputy Director and Deputy Commissioner for Agriculture highlighted this: 
    Deevenamma: ‘What happens when we get injured by pesticides that are used inappropriately? Sometimes we even get killed by their adverse health effects. Will you give us compensation? What about all those jeeps coming to our villages and persuading us to use their pesticides. Why can’t you stop them?’
    Akbal Rao (answering): ‘Pesticides are like cigarettes. People get addicted to them and use more and more. Only then are they injurious to their health. They need to be educated not to become addicted. We can’t stop firms going round the villages marketing their product. If you feel they have cheated you, you should register a complaint with the police.’
    Deevenamma: ‘It is fine that you are thinking of reimbursement from the company if there is a crop loss. But what about loss of lives, with the use of these materials [pesticides]?’
    Akbal Rao (answering): ‘We cannot do anything. It is in the hands of God.’
    But pesticides are part and parcel of the process of modernisation spelt out in Vision 2020, according to Professor MV Rao: 
    ‘Earlier one of you was talking about the ill effects of pesticides and chemical fertilisers, and getting into debt. But you cannot stop using them completely. The crops need some protection… This is the first time in the state that a document like Vision 2020 has been presented… The loans from the World Bank would be used to modernise agriculture.’

Indigenous knowledge ignored
Jurors made the point that there were alternatives to intensified use of agrochemicals. Indigenous knowledge and management systems include many safe and effective methods of pest control and fertilisation, and the jurors talked about the perverse policy incentives and subsidies that encourage the use and abuse of agrochemicals. 
    Incentives to reduce the use of dangerous and expensive agrochemicals in farming and livestock management were clearly linked with the need to switch to more diverse, sustainable, low external input or/and organic agriculture. The ecological resilience and safety of diversity-rich farms and forests were generally seen as more appropriate than monocultures, which were seen to be riskier and linked with the continued use of pesticides and chemical fertilisers. The jury was confident that small farmers could grow safe, quality food for everyone, provided policies were enabling for the farmers rather than the suppliers of off-farm inputs: 
    Anjamma: ‘Since you depend on us farmers to provide you with crops and food, why don’t you allow us to follow our own methods, to provide you with quality food. If you consume food which contains toxins, you will have health problems and your hospital bills will go up. We all eat the same food. If you take care of us and provide us with adequate resources, we will ensure you get enough quality food.’ 

Traditional farming methods
Jurors emphasised the values of indigenous farming and land-use systems based on bio-diversity. A one to two acre farm will usually host eight to 12 types of crop. Hardy, locally adapted and diverse livestock breeds were also seen as key in farming systems favoured by the jury, also providing a source of high-quality organic manure. Many referred to organic manure as the basis of good husbandry and healthy crops, animals and people. Speaking on behalf of the jury, Ammaji called for production systems that reflect and reinforce farmers’ autonomous decision-making. 
    Whilst the jurors were clearly aware that indigenous farming and its knowledge basis were ecologically sound and less risky, they were also aware that decisive policy changes and technical re-orientations were needed by the government to realise the full potential of diverse agricultures and land uses. They specifically called for appropriate training and research as well as for government support to re-introduce livestock. 

Indigenous knowledge and traditions
AP has a large store of indigenous knowledge and many informal innovations in forestry, farming, animal husbandry, water management and healthcare. In many ways this was obvious to all the jurors, who constantly drew on their indigenous knowledge and experience when cross-examining the specialist witnesses. 
    The technocratic mindset which surfaced strongly at different moments of the jury’s cross-examination of key witnesses reminded all present how much rural peoples’ knowledge was misunderstood, despised, unvalued and marginalised. 
    Many of the jury’s recommendations for the future of food and farming in AP are strong calls to recognise, regenerate and build on indigenous knowledge and management systems as local institutions. The enduring practical and cultural/spiritual values of indigenous knowledge as well as the need to recover and recontextualise what has been lost were emphasised in the jury’s final verdict. 

GM crops 
The Prajateerpu jury heard more evidence on GM (genetically modified, also called genetically engineered) crops than on any other single issue during its proceedings. None of the jurors had heard of GM crops before the hearings, yet by the end of the hearings they felt informed enough to reach a strong set of conclusions. 
    Most jurors were convinced that their own methods of agriculture were more reliable than most so-called high yielding varieties (HYVs) or the new GM crops. Deevenamma summed up their views: ‘Long back when we were doing our own agriculture using our own [indigenous] methods we were also producing enough and we were also eating and we had good comfortable living with clothing and food and everything. Then we shifted to chemical agriculture because they promised that it would give good high yields and more production. So we shifted to this kind of agriculture, but slowly we have to increase our inputs in the form of buying more and more fertilisers and pesticide and many other forms of management. Already we are having joint pains and other health problems because of this chemical agriculture. Now you are telling us that we have another type of agriculture – GM crops. Now you are also telling us that you have created new varieties. We don’t know whether it is safe for our consumption. Because of chemical agriculture our own fodder is already not edible to our own cattle because of pesticide residue. HYV fodder is not relished by our cattle. If you give them GM crops, which kill an insect when a leaf is eaten by the insect, how can you be sure that it does not poison or kill ourselves and our cattle when we use it for human consumption and as cattle feed? All these are genuine doubts we have. I am sure that our own methods of agriculture are safer than these new untested ones.’
    Even before the evidence from Banerji, one juror had responded sceptically to the claim from Professor Rao that GM crops would not need pesticide applications. ‘If that really was the case’, said the juror (in a remark made off-camera to one of the facilitators), ‘why would the pesticide companies allow GM crops to come in?’ They were under no illusions that the same companies that had sold them pesticides in the past would now be attempting to sell them GM crops.
    Perhaps a crucial moment in Dasgupta’s evidence to the jury was when he hinted that golden rice was particularly useful in that ‘it improved nutrition without having to change people’s basic condition of poverty.’ 
    Another juror condemned the amount of money being spent on biotechnology research: ‘Why spend so many crores of rupees [millions of US$] on your research projects, and on ones which will only damage farmers’ lives too? The farmers know what to do, and they have the knowledge to do it. Please leave the farmers alone. Or give them half of what you are spending, because they can do better.’
    Deevenamma felt very strongly that GM was dangerous. She asked Banerji to ‘please take all this knowledge and plunge it into a deep ocean or sea with all these papers and calculations, so that it may not come out again on the television and in the papers.’

Conclusion
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of Prajateerpu was the jurors wish to exercise their sovereignty and control over decisions on food and farming futures. Their vision is one of self-reliance and multifunctional agriculture in which trade and markets protect the environment, local food systems and rural economies.

References
1. This article is largely taken from Pimbert MP and Wakeford T, Prajateerpu: A Citizens Jury/Scenario Workshop on Food and Farming Futures for Andhra Pradesh, India, IIED, London, 2002, available at www.iied.org/agri
2. Pimbert MP and Wakeford T, Op. cit. 1.
3. A crore is ten million, 1,000 rupees = US$20,42317.
4. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vision 2020: Swarna Andhra Pradesh, 1999, GoAP 2000 Swarna Andhra Pradesh Vision 2020: working paper on livestock development policy, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, GoAP, 2000, Swarna Andhra Pradesh Vision 2020: working paper on agriculture development policy, Agriculture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2001, Strategy paper of Agriculture and Allied Departments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, www.andhrapradesh.com
5. Vasavi AR, Agrarian Distress in Bidar: market, state and suicides, Economic and Political Weekly, August 7 1999, 2263-69.
6. Vasavi AR, Harbingers of Rain: land and life in South India Oxford University Press: New Delhi, 1999.
7. Under the sharecropping system, part of the harvest must be paid to a landlord as rent. 
8. Vasavi found 30 types that had been grown in the district in visits to just three villages. 
9. Op cit. 5 and 6.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 56, June 2002, pages 12-14]