This is excerpt of an interview with one of the leading professional dealing with agri-biotechnology.The interview is provided as is without any editorial oversight by us.
In March, K.K. Narayanan— one of the Founder-Directors of Metahelix Life Sciences— exited the company after 15 years. In 2010, he sold the agri-biotechnology company to the Tatas but remained Managing Director as part of the deal. Narayanan continues to be an advisor to the Tata group.
The focus crops for Metahelix are cotton, rice, maize, millets (bajra) and a few vegetables. Here, K.K. Narayanan discusses with the writer the arduous but persistent growth journey of genetically-modified crops in India, and his views on the government strategy to double farmers’ incomes.
No new genetically-modified (GM) crop has been approved in India after Bt cotton in 2002. At Metahelix, was there any hesitancy about persisting with agri-biotechnology?
This is a question that often comes up, particularly from investors and the parent company. But they realise you need to have a foot in the door. One day, when the door opens, you should be there. Having invested so much money, time and the intellect of so many people, it would be foolish to step back. We have revenue streams coming from hybrids; part of it you set aside. It does have a hit on the bottom line but that is a conscious decision. It is a long-term investment.
Do you have difficulty attracting talent?
Those who are choosing this field of science are confused and some are not very confident. But the opportunities are huge for a largely agrarian country like India. To fulfil their promises of equitable development, our political bosses will have to leverage the technology.
Bt cotton is under price control. The Agriculture Minister believes it is expensive. Is that what farmers tell you?
Farmers are wise. They take commercial decisions. I don’t think the government should intervene in prices. When we talk of “free market play”, you need a free market. On the one side, you are choking the pipeline of alternate or competitive technologies. So there are a few people who have a head start. (Monsanto’s Bt cottonseed technology has more than 90 percent share of the market-ed). Now the hurdle has been raised to such a high level that nobody else is able to cross it. And then you cry “monopoly, monopoly.” This is an artificially created monopoly. If the regulatory system can be scientific and rational, these problems can be eased. Indian companies, both in the public and private sectors, can develop competitive technologies. Farmers need to have a choice.
Does the present regulatory system help incumbents?
It is inadvertently creating a monopoly. They (incumbents) are also having trouble because they cannot bring newer versions. Today, the entry barrier is regulation— it is not the capability to develop technologies.
Our political leaders associate agri-biotechnology with American companies.
If you look from the stratosphere, you will see that one company is giving the technology to everybody. You are not realising why the other companies are not coming up to that level. It is because of regulatory hurdles. We have developed Bt cotton with stacked genes for bollworm resistance. It is different from that of Monsanto, the leading provider today. We have Bt rice and herbicide-tolerant maize. These are not imported technologies. We have developed them here.
How long have you been waiting?
We have been waiting since 2007. We were one of the few companies to get approval for our own Bt cotton. But it was a single-gene product that protected against the leaf-eating caterpillar. We could not go to the market because it has moved to double genes. So we developed (Bt cotton with) other genes which give protection against bollworms. But we have had no success (with field trials) since 2007-08.
What about Bt rice?
We did a field trial in 2009. After that, we have not had permission. In 2010-11 we got GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee, the apex regulatory body) permission for large-scale field trials in Andhra Pradesh. But A.P. was not giving us the NOC (no objection certificate) which became mandatory after February 2010. The permission lapsed because it was for one season. We went back to GEAC for open-ended permission. By the time they gave it, A.P. was no longer A.P.
So we had to apply to Telangana for NOC and that is still pending. It is 2016 and you can imagine how much time is being wasted.
And herbicide- tolerant maize?
We have just selected the (DNA recombination) event and have applied for trials. It is still at an early stage. But if commercialisation was within sight, we could have easily fast-tracked it. When the present government came, we were quite hopeful. But suddenly you find other arms like the Swadeshi Jagran Manch or the Bharatiya Kisan Union pulling in the other direction. The Maharashtra government gave permission for field trials and, before it happened, it pulled back.
Genetically-modified mustard, DMH-11, developed by Deepak Pental of Delhi University is awaiting approval for commercial cultivation. Metahelix has the rights to DMH 4 which is a non-GM mustard hybrid. How as it been received?
Oh, it is certainly better in terms of yield and productivity than open pollinating varieties. That is a given because of hybrid vigour. What is important is not whether it is absolutely better but whether it can compensate for the negatives with increased yields or revenues. Like any product, it comes with some challenges. It takes five days more to mature. Farmers feel this will affect planting of the next crop. The plant habit may be important. If it grows too tall, it is difficult to harvest. Labour is no longer cheap and availability is an issue. The seed size is small. Famers prefer bolder seeds. Actually, what is important is the oil content.
The Central Institute of Cotton Research believes that India does not need Bt technology. With high-density planting of short duration cotton, it says, the crop can be harvested before bollworms arrive.
For a country as large and diverse as India, you need a multi-pronged approach. I say this even in the context of Vitamin-A rice or Golden Rice. Some people say, give carrot or green leaves and solve the problem. If you are giving Golden Rice, is somebody preventing you from giving a carrot? No. (Bt) hybrids and high-density planting are not mutually exclusive. Ultimately, you have to test it out, validate it. Our farmers are wise enough. They will pick only the good ones. The others they will throw into the Bay of Bengal.
In May, the government tried to give a compulsory license on patented Bt cotton using the Essential Commodities Act.
Compulsory licensing is bad. If you stifle the system, you are going to impact innovation. Compulsory licensing is warranted where there is an emergency, a famine or a war-like situation. Bringing cotton seed into the Essential Commodities Act was an arbitrary decision.
Do you think the government has a strategy to double farmers’ income by 2022?
There are a few things which should be considered: increase productivity and reduce the cost. This can be achieved by leveraging technology. It is not up there. It is not blue sky. It has been proven and there is enough evidence. Take the example of Bt cotton itself. Studies have shown how incomes have gone up and that is the reason why 95 percent of farmers are cultivating it.
The other aspect, do not stop with production. There is a huge scope in this country for value addition. For example, there is an estimate which says that the farmer who produces the bean gets 1/20,000th the price we pay for the coffee we drink here (at Café Coffee Day in Bengaluru).Why not make it 1/200? And, here again, there is huge scope for technological intervention.
Is there a GM solution to alleviate the shortage of pulses?
Some of the major pests which infect cotton also affect pulses. So if you have a Bt solution you are actually saving on pesticides and improving productivity. What these technologies do is actually stabilise production. The uncertainty with regard to production is, to a large extent, eliminated or mitigated.
Bt cotton is an example. The technology only mitigates the impact of bollworms on yield. So the farmer puts more inputs and produces more. It is a kind of insurance. If you give that for pulses, farmers will give more inputs to increase productivity. Today, our productivity in pulses is abysmal.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.