Wheat arrivals in India begin to dwindle. Raises questions about the credibility of production estimates.

Wheat arrivals have slowed down in India

Wheat arrivals in the mandis have slowed down. Compared to 2012 marketing season, wheat arrivals this year have come down to a trickle. Although food procurement agencies believe it is because farmers are anticipating a higher return in the months to come and so are holding up the harvest, the question that cannot be ignored is whether the estimates of mandi arrivals were exaggerated?

According to a news report in Dainik Jagran (May 17, 2013) the daily arrivals in different mandis of the wheat belt have shrunk to 1.71 lakh tonnes as against the average of 4 lakh tonnes in the same period last year. The total arrivals in the mandis till May 15 (the procurement season begins from April 1 and lasts till June) was 27.3 million tonnes compared to 31.6 million tonnes last year. This is a clear drop of 4.3 million tonnes till now.

In Punjab, the wheat bowl, as against 81,000 tonnes arrival in 2012, the arrivals this year have slowed down to 25,000 tonnes. In neighbouring Haryana it is much worse. The arrivals, 28,000 tonnes in 2012, have now been reduced to a trickle. The average daily arrival now is 4,000 tonnes. In Madhya Pradesh too, wheat arrivals have slowed down, from 12.1 million tonnes in 2012 to 73,000 tonnes in 2013. Uttar Pradesh too is faced with the same dilemma. Against 14.1 million tonnes in 2012, the arrivals have come down to 36,000 tonnes now.

It is expected that by the time the marketing season ends in June, and with such low arrivals, the procurement will be down by about 10 million tonnes. This shortfall is against the record estimate of 44 million tonne of wheat procurement that has been announced with much fanfare. I am aware that the Ministry of Food & Consumer Affairs is worried at the slackening procurement figures in the light of the ambitious targets set under the proposed National Food Security bill, but what needs to be ascertained is whether the procurement estimates were deliberately inflated and blown out of proportion to provide a feel good factor for the slowing economy? Were the production and procurement estimates magnified to make a case for wheat exports?

In the past fiscal, India has exported 10 million tonnes of wheat at a time when the international prices were not favourable, and the argument was that the country will get a bountiful harvest in 2013 thereby creating more problem for food stocking. Against 82.3 million tonnes stocks (wheat and rice) on June 1, 2012, the Ministry of Food & Consumer Affairs was anticipating stocks to touch an all-time high of 90 million tonnes by June 1, 2013.

First in mother's milk, now 21 different pesticides have been found in umbilical cord blood. The UN says there are safer agro-ecological alternatives available.

There is something going wrong. While I find every year more research tumbles out on the harmful effects of chemical pesticides, its usage continues to grow substantially. Its either that we don't care and give a damn to these research reports or perhaps we leave it to the policy makers to take a final call. Whatever be it, the facts remain that the concentration of pesticide residues in our bodies is reaching an appalling level. 

So far we knew about pesticide residues in mothers milk, and we have also been told that the damage is not only restricted to agriculturally farmed lands. Even in the Antarctic, researchers have detected pesticide residues in penguins. The reach of the deadly chemicals therefore is far and wide. 

The US-based Environment Working Group had recently reported: "Most babies today are born with persistent pesticides and other chemicals already in their bodies, passed from mother to child during fetal development. 21 different pesticides have been found in umbilical cord blood, suggesting tremendous potential damage at a critical developmental time. Since a baby's organs and systems are rapidly developing, they are often more vulnerable to damage from chemical exposure.  The immature, porous blood-brain barrier allows greater chemical exposures to the developing brain." I find this to be not only alarming but worrying. 

If you are still not moved, here are a few more startling facts that might give you a jolt. Thirty years after it was banned, DDT still exists in the cells of Americans. US consumers get upto 70 daily exposures of pesticide residues from persistent organic pollutants (POPs) through their diets. In a well-documented analysis, Organic Valley website (http://www.organicvalley.coop/why-organic/pesticides/) reports:

Many pesticides are known to pose significant, acknowledged health risks to people—including birth defects, damage to the nervous system; disruption of hormones and endocrine systems; respiratory disorders; skin and eye irritations; and various types of cancers.

• Exposure to persistent organic pollutants through diet has been linked to breast and other types of cancer, immune system suppression, nervous system disorders, reproductive damage, and disruption of hormonal systems.
• Male Reproductive Development: Hormone-disrupting chemicals in commercial pesticides have been linked to testicular cancer and low sperm counts in men, and to birth defects in baby boys.
• Public health costs associated with pesticide-related acute poisonings and cancer alone, add up to an estimated $1.1 billion dollars per year.
• Parkinson's disease has been linked to pesticide exposure.

This brings me to the issue whether we have alternatives to the deadly chemical pesticides. In an evaluation of the non-chemical alternatives to endosulfan, the latest among the chemicals whose production and use is being phased out, a working paper of the the United Nation's Environment Programme (UNEP)  has talked of ecosystem approach or agro-ecological approaches to crop production. It quotes the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food Dr Olivier de Schutter, who in his report delivered to the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council listed out various options that are being successfully tried.  

The UN report says: "De Schutter references a report by Pretty et al12 which found an average crop increase of 79% in 286 sustainable agriculture projects based on agroecology, in 57 countries covering 37 million hectares, rising to 116% for all African projects and 128% for East Africa. He also refers to a study commissioned by Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures, of 30 projects in 20 African countries, which found a an average 213% increase in yields with sustainable agro-ecological practices within 3-10 years. He concluded that scaling up agro-ecological practices can simultaneously increase farm productivity and food security, improve incomes and rural livelihoods, reverse the trend towards species loss and genetic erosion, and assist adaption to climate change."

Quoting Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu and Raghunath of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, the UN report further says: "CMSA (Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture) has significantly reduced the costs of cultivation without significantly reducing productivity, resulting in a net increase in farmers’ income and significant health and ecological benefits. By 2009, over 300,000 farmers on 550,000 hectares of farmland in Andra Pradesh had adopted CMSA in four years. In 2011, those figures were reported to have grown to over 10 million farmers on over 10 million hectares." This is no small achievement. If pesticides-free agriculture can be successfully practiced in 10 million hectares, I see no reason why it can't be replicated in the rest of the country. 

It is therefore not correct to always quote the TINA (there is no alternative) factor when it comes to chemical pesticides. It is high time we, the average consumer, becomes aware of our own health as well as the safety of the environment we live in. The onus of safe and correct policy approaches actually lies on us and not the policy makers. It is just because you have kept mum all these years, and continue to suffer in silence, that the policy makers have promoted unsustainable options. Time you woke up. 

India's BRAI Bill will allow GM companies to tamper with food, health and environment

In March, US President Barack Obama signed the HR 933 continuing resolution -- popularly called ‘Monsanto Protection Act’—that effectively divests the federal courts of their constitutional power to stop the planting or sale of genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops regardless of the health and environmental consequences. In other words, whether you like it or not, despite the havoc it plays with your life and environment, you have no choice but to quietly accept GM foods.

On April 22, amidst the din and noise over the 2G Spectrum and Coal-Gate scams, the government introduced in parliament the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill 2013. No sooner the bill was introduced the Association for Biotechnology Led Enterprises (ABLE) expressed jubilation thereby making obvious the incestuous relationship industry has with the government. Setting aside all concerns expressed by the 2004 Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology led by Dr M S Swaminathan, which stated:  “the safety of the environment, the well- being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the biosecurity of the nation”, the bill is an hurried attempt to remove all possible obstacles in the promotion of the risky and controversial technology.

In lot many ways, I find the BRAI bill 2013 to be a precursor to the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ in the US. While the US government has removed all regulatory hurdles in the promotion of GM crops, the BRAI bill too makes the task much easier and quick by providing a single-window, fast-track clearance for GM crops. While in the garb of ‘confidential commercial information’, the BRAI bill imposes restriction on the application of Right to Information Act, it also has certain clauses that limit the jurisdiction of the courts over the decisions taken. The BRAI bill therefore provides a strong and legally-tight protective shield to the biotechnology companies and the conspiring government officials.

The need to curb transparency and accountability arises only when something dangerous has to be kept hidden from the public glare. It first begins by the pro-industry scientists, occupying senior government and university positions, to create scare by misrepresenting facts in the name of a ‘science-based’ debate.  I have seen luminaries, many of whom are part of the science advisory panel to prime minister, leading this brigade. It happens elsewhere too. Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot points to the particular instance when the chief veterinary officer of UK had ‘discounted fears that BSE could jump from one species to another’. The failure to acknowledge the scientific fact and take remedial measures led to the emergence of mad cow disease.

In India, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has been aggressively pushing for the spread of GM crops in the name of food security. When the Ministry of Environment & Forests questioned the veracity of scientific claims, and imposed in 2010 a moratorium on the genetically engineered food crop – Bt Brinjal, the GM industry was pushed on the back foot. Adding to its woes was the 2012 report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee, which in its exhaustive report found biotechnology regulation to be too small a focus on the vast canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health and therefore recommended an all-encompassing Biosafety Authority.

Subsequently, after seven states – West Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgrah, Karnataka and Kerala – refused to go in for open field trails of GM crops, the only option left was to bulldoze public resistance through a legally binding mechanism. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) then swung into action, and knowing that the Ministry of Environment & Forests is no longer a natural ally, moved the introduction of the bill to the Department of Science & Technology, which incidentally is a promoter of the technology. The conflict of interest therefore is clearly visible. But a defiant PMO continues to look the other side.

At the same time, citing ‘public interest’, the BRAI bill has taken away the role the states have over agriculture and health. The states can no longer refuse permission. They are left with only an advisory role. What makes the BRAI bill a perfect subject for a serious, healthy and widespread national debate, besides of course looking into the role being played by PMO in promoting corporate welfare, is that it concerns as well as impacts everyone in the country. Whether you want to know or not, the bill provides biotechnology companies with unlimited powers to tamper with your food, health and environment. I therefore leave you to decide whether you would like the government and the GM companies to exercise complete control over what you eat. #

Source: Tehelka, May 11, 2013. Issue 19 Volume 10

http://tehelka.com/who-decides-what-we-eat/

Cash-for-food will strike at the very foundation of the farm economy.

While addressing a joint session of Parliament, President Pranab Mukherjee said “in due course the direct benefits transfer system will also cover wages and subsidies on food.”

The enthusiasm for routing the food subsidy in the form of cash transfers has severe political advantages but at the same time has serious fallout in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. The political advantage was spelled out by Rahul Gandhi the other day when he  made it abundantly clear that cash transfers could win them not only 2014 but also the 2019 general elections. The entire academic euphoria over the proposed aggressive rollout of Aadhar-based cash (electronically generated unique identification number UID) therefore is simply overbearing and needs to be seen in the light of political bias. In fact, the visible trend in the ongoing national debate is more towards being seen as politically correct.

A World Bank working paper, entitled: “Conditional Cash Transfers, Political Participation and Voting Behaviour,” studied the voting behaviour for a conditional cash transfer programme launched in Colombia just before the 2010 elections. Subsequently, a 2011 study of an unconditional cash transfer programme in Uruguay clearly established that cash transfers did help the ruling party get a large share of the votes, and thereby helped the party to romp home at the back of cash transfers. In India, the political urgency and the aggressiveness with which the massive cash transfers are expected to cover the entire country by April 2014 is therefore quite obviously aimed at bringing electoral benefit to the ruling party.

The unconditional direct cash transfer programme that was proposed to be launched from Jan 1 in three phases started with 43 districts involving a cash provision of Rs 20,000-crore*. Eventually, all forms of subsidies to the poor, including food and fertiliser, will be in the form of cash flow, and would add up to Rs 300,000- crore annually. I fail to understand how and why such a massive cash outflow pipeline will reach the beneficiaries without first putting up a fool-proof delivery system in place. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) too was envisioned with a lot of expectations but has miserably failed to deliver. Several studies have pointed to nearly 70-80 per cent leakages, and yet somehow the impression is that MNREGA has transformed the rural economics.

With only 40 per cent of the population having access to banks, and with the over ambitious target of reaching the remaining population through banking correspondents – who will be operating like the village postmen except they will now be equipped with portable handheld machines acting like micro-ATMs – we are perhaps expecting too much from the most important human link between the technology and the money delivery. So far, there are only 70,000 banking correspondents and the experience has not been very encouraging. In the next one year, the number of banking correspondents will have to increase ten-fold to reach a staggering figure of 7 lakh.

Knowing that the entire rural and agricultural banking operations are rooted in corruption, I wonder how we have accepted that the banking correspondents will not be swayed by corrupt practices. If 60 per cent of the beneficiaries have to be reached through an army of banking correspondent, who will be handling over Rs 150,000- crore by any conservative estimate, the delivery mechanism is certainly fraught with over-confidence stemming from political urgency. This is where I think the policy makers and bureaucrats have failed to rise above assumptions. This is where I think the aadhar-based cash-for-vote will end up being no different than the hype generated at the time of launching MNREGA.  

Nevertheless, what worries me more is when cash transfers move to the next phase, and that means meeting food entitlements directly with cash. Thanks to the concerns raised by the civil society, the government has deferred cash-for-food for the time being. It was more because of the fear that the cash-for-food programme could go completely out of control, and therefore could negate the political advantage that the ruling party is hoping to garner, that it has been kept in abeyance. At a time when the proposed National Food Security bill is pending introduction before the 2014 elections, any tampering without a proper evaluation could backfire.

But still, the hawks are keen to push it through as early as possible. The government has already announced that cash-for-food will begin in union territories in about a month’s time.

It is true that more than 60 per cent of the food that is channelized through the public distribution system is either wasted or siphoned off in transit and the entire system is mired in corruption. What reaches the poor beneficiaries is often not even fit for consumption. The answer however does not lie in dismantling the Public Distribution System (PDS), but reforming the world-largest food delivery system to riddle it of corruption, and make it more effective. This is certainly possible, but given the extent of political meddling in the allotment of ration shops to transportation of grains, it has never been attempted in right earnest.

For several decades now, the international emphasis has been to force India to dismantle the PDS. The first attempt was made at the time of the infamous Arthur Dunkel draft during the primitive years of world trade negotiations. WTO aimed at curtailing the PDS role, and wanted markets to ensure food security. Strong opposition from India, cutting across political lines, forced the WTO to eventually withdraw that clause. Subsequently, in the name of decentralisation of food procurement and storage system, an attempt was made during the tenure of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to divest the Centre of its onerous responsibility of procuring foods for the central pool, and leave it to the States to manage grain procurement, storage and distribution.

Several chief ministers had opposed the decentralisation move thereby forcing the government to retreat. For several years now, the emphasis has once again been on discarding food procurement. Allowing Food Corporation of India (FCI) to increasingly take on a commercial role by shifting focus from its sovereign role of ensuring domestic food security to looking for opportunities for grain exports, and finally to engage in future trading in wheat so as to offload and earn profits from the mounting surplus it carries. This has also to be seen in conjunction with the proposal to cap food procurement to the country’s buffer stock needs, and thereby deprive farmers of getting benefit of the assured price of wheat and rice. At present, FCI is under an obligation to purchase the surplus grains flowing in to the mandis (market yards) at the Minimum Support Price. Once this role is withdrawn, farmers would be left at the mercy of trade.

Providing cash in the hands of poor beneficiaries means less emphasis on the PDS ration shops. The idea is to provide coupons or provide food entitlements in the form of cash, and leaving it to the people to buy their quota from the market. Whether the money provided would be used primarily to buy liquor, junk foods or other consumer goods is an important issue, but what is more important is to understand how it is aimed at dismantling the food procurement system. This subtle way, very cleverly designed, would undo the gains of food self-sufficiency so assiduously achieved after the advent of Green Revolution. 

The underlying objective is very clear. Once the direct cash transfers begin, the ration shops would be gradually phased out. Once the PDS shops are removed, the cap in food procurement that is being suggested for FCI will come into play. With food procurement limited to meet the buffer requirements, which is somewhere between 14 to 22 million tonnes a year (against 82.3 million tonnes stocked with the FCI in June 2012), wheat and rice farmers would no longer get the benefit of the minimum support price. Farmers would be left to face the vagaries of the trade, and as has been the experience in those States which do not have a robust system of mandis and thereby unable to provide farmers with assured prices, distress sale will become a norm.

Withdrawal of food procurement system will have an impact on food production. This would help farmers to abandon farming, and migrate to the urban centres. This is exactly what the World Bank has been proposing for several years now. The 2008 World Development Report had called for land rentals and providing farmers with training opportunities so that they can be absorbed in the industry. The government, as directed, made budgetary provisions for setting up 1000 industrial training institutes across the country. It is therefore obvious that the government had wanted to withdraw from food procurement and distribution for quite long now, following the dictates of the World Bank/IMF. Cash-for-food will facilitate the process and make it easy. Food requirement will then have to be met from imports, and there is already a dominant thinking within the government which advocates importing subsidised food off-the-shelf from the western countries rather than spending more on growing food within the country.

FDI in retail comes at a time when contract farming is receiving greater attention. The idea is to link the farmers growing cash crops with the supermarkets. This will help the government from doing away with the system of announcing the minimum support price and thereby reduce the subsidy outgo. This is exactly what the World Trade Organisation (WTO) had wanted several decades ago. The process to dismantle food procurement, a highly emotive issue in India, actually began in mid 1990s. It is now receiving the final touches.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had repeatedly said that the country has 70 per cent more than what is required. Cash-for-food will provide the smokescreen needed to accomplish what the WTO/World Bank/IMF have been telling India for long. It is only when of the farming population is moved out of the villages that the agribusiness can find a stronghold in India. The predominant economic thinking is that the population in agriculture has to cut back drastically for any country to grow economically. Cash transfers will deliver to the bigger promise of igniting country’s economic growth. # 

Source: Governance Now, May 1-15, 2013. Vol 04 Issue 07

The slow death of Krishi Vigyan Kendras. Killing public sector farm extension.

These were launched with a great fanfare. Successive Agriculture Ministers had appreciated the role of Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs). In fact, there was so much of demand for setting up KVKs, that I remember political representatives making a beeline. These farm extension centres, set up in almost all the districts of the country, were expected to be the outreach arms of the State Agricultural Universities.

The first KVK was set up by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research at Pondicherry in 1974. The KVKs had the mandate for on-farm testing to identify the location specificity of agricultural technologies under various farming sustems; frontline demonstration to establish its production potentials on the farmer's field; training of farmers to update their knowledge and skills in modern agricultural technologies and training of extension personnel to orient them in the frontier areas of technology development.

A news report by intrepid journalist S P Singh in the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran (April 28, 2013) exposes the shocking plight and neglect of these important farm extension kendras. The 632 KVKs are not only gasping for breath but for all practical purposes have been left to die. Gung-ho on private agri-clinics, perhaps the government has no space left for the public sector extension outlets. These have been rendered irrelevant.

Consider this:

1) Over 100 KVKs do not have office buildings. Agricultural scientists sit and work from under a tree.
2) 175 KVKs do not have the basic soil testing facilities.
3) 1,500 jobs of KVK scientists are lying vacant.
4) Scientific equipment and machinery is lying unused and rusting at a number of places.
5) 234 KVKs do not have facilities of demonstrate improved technology, and that includes research farms.
6) No KVK has residential facilities for its staff.
7) The annual budget for agricultural extension has been drastically reduced from Rs 10,000-crore to Rs 4,000-crore. This is bare enough to meet the salary requirements.
8)  In the name of contingency, each KVK can get only Rs 5 lakh a year.

The modus operandi is the same. To promote privatisation, the first step is to starve public sector institutes/bodies of funds. Once the financial lifeline is disconnected, the end is nearer. It is happening across the board in India, and KVKs are no exception. The death-knell for KVKs is being sounded because the government is keen to pass on farm extension into private hands. Agri-clinics are now being promoted (of course with government subsidies).

While economy falters, British Queen continues to receive massive farm subsidies.

This is the Queen's Sandringham Estate that received £7million in farming subsidies -- Picture in Daily Mail

Some years back I had detailed out the agricultural subsidies that go to the wealthy. It made a very interesting read, and provided an insight into how the rich and powerful in European Union and the United States quietly pocketed farm subsidies. One of the objectives of giving subsidies is to ensure a reasonable standard of living for farmers, and I wonder how the subsidy bonanza to the rich and wealthy in the name of farmers could be justified.

Here is that analysis -- Farm subsidies: The report card (http://www.stwr.org/imf-world-bank-trade/farm-subsidies-the-report-card.html).

At a time when the economy is faced with recession, and country after country is resorting to austerity cuts, I find no mention of restricting farm subsidies. Specially after the economic meltdown of 2008-09, I had expected the industrialised countries to cut farm support to the wealthy and divert the precious financial resources to creating employment opportunities. With this intention, I thought of doing a reality check.

No, nothing has changed.

Take the case of Britain. I was reading today that the British economy is growing at a snail pace of 0.3 per cent in the first quarter of this year. And yet the British Queen fails to set an example by walking the talk. According to a news report in Daily Mail (March 5, 2012), the Queen received a subsidy of 7 million British pounds in the past ten years (http://bit.ly/A8TSTw). Earlier, in my report card I had said: "Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II is not a farmer, but she is amongst the highest recipient of agricultural subsidies. In 2003-04, she received nearly US $ 1.31 million in farm payments. Her son and heir apparent to the British throne, Prince Charles, received more than US $ 480,000 as agricultural support for his personal estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, and the Duchy's Home Farm."

One of the richest person in Britain -- Duke of Westminster -- was quite close to the Queen when it comes to subsidies. He received 6 million pounds during the same period. Estimated to be worth 7 billion pounds, Duke of Westminster "owns about 55,000 hectares of farm estates, received a subsidy of US$ 480,000 as direct payments in 2003-04, and in addition gets US$ 550,000 a year for the 1,200 dairy cows he keeps." Among the others receiving the subsidy bonanza is Sir Richard Sutton who features in the Times Rich List, and still got 1.9 million pounds in farm subsidies. 

Well, the message is loud and clear. For the rich and powerful, life goes on as usual. Whether it is economic recession or depression, the rich remain untouched. It is only the average citizen who has to bear the brunt and be prepared to rough it out. 

India buckles before European Union. Is ready to sign a 'no-win' free trade agreement that benefits EU mainly

Some years back, a top Indian negotiator for the Indo-Asean Free Trade Agreement (FTA) shared with me an interesting insight. As is the normal practice, the negotiating team went to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, before leaving for the talks. The underlying idea being to get the final limit -- where to draw the Lakshman Rekha -- to which India can agree to on several tricky issues during the negotiations.

The Prime Minister listened to them, and finally said: "Just go and sign."

The negotiators were shocked. But I wasn't even surprised. The little that I know of Manmohan Singh, our ever obliging Prime Minister has been too ignorant (or is it deliberate?) about the dangers of acceding India's interests at international trade negotiations. At the time of the Uruguay Round discussions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), I recall his statement in Parliament (as the country's Finance Minister) that those who are concerned about the negative fallout of WTO have actually not read the WTO documents. 

I bet if Manmohan Singh had ever read the WTO papers. I doubt if he even knows what is being negotiated at the FTAs. All he knows for sure is which Head of the State has been wanting what kind of concessions from India. And he has been more than willing to oblige.

We are now in 2013, and the Doha Development Round has failed. Even now, there is so much of mistrust in what is going on at the WTO talks, where the rich industrialized countries have still not given up on the grip, that many believe the talks have reached a dead end. In any case, the United States and European Union, the two prime pushers for an unjust and unequal trade regime, have meanwhile shifted gears to focus on bilateral and regional trade agreements. Free Trade Agreements therefore are part of the Plan B and are being pursued aggressively.

While India is in an undue haste in signing an FTA with European Union, reports have now started appearing that most of the signed FTAs have turned out to be a win-lose proposition -- win for the trading partner, and loss for India. The Economic Survey 2013 observes: "Trade deficit (on customs basis) reached a peak of US$ 184.6 billion in 2011-12 from US$ 118.6 billion in 2010-11 with the highest growth of 55.6 per cent since 1950-51." (Page 156 para 7.18). This itself should be a cause for greater worry. 

In a report entitled: Foreign trading partners getting more out of free trade agreements (Times of India, April 15, 2013. http://bit.ly/129rTqO): "Experience with half-a-dozen pacts that India has signed since 2004-05 shows that usually, it is the trading partner that ends up being the winner. Be it Thailand, Asean, South Korea, Japan, Singapore or Malaysia, in almost all cases, imports have grown at a faster pace than exports after the government agreed to slash tariffs. In case of Singapore, where the spurt did not take place in the first year, the growth in imports from the island nation in the second and third years more than made up for the absence of the trend at the start." 

The EU-India free trade agreement is no exception. The trade agreement is being signed to boost employment and prosperity in both the EU and in India. But the way the negotiations are going about, with the EU making it abundantly clear that the hiking of FDI in insurance from 26 to 49 per cent is an absolute must, and with the concerns being expressed by the domestic auto industry in India, the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) and the Indian Pharma Alliance, it is quite clear as to whose interests the EU-India FTA will serve. 

In reply to a question (E-009465/12 and E-009466/12) in EU Parliament, the European Commission's response was: "A comprehensive coverage for the EU would imply a meaningful package on tariffs (industrial and agricultural goods), high level of ambition in services, public procurement, sustainable development etc. India has an average applied tariff rate of 14.1% (wines & spirits: 150% and cars: 60% to 75%) and a substantial reduction in these tariffs would be necessary. In services, India will need to take commitments in sectors of EU interest such as retail banking and insurance. Legal certainty for EU companies is invaluable as they contemplate investments in these sectors which are just opening in India. As regards public procurement and sustainable development, this is the first time India is including these issues in a Free Trade Agreement. Public procurement could be a significant opportunity as India has forecast an expenditure of 1 trillion USD in the next five years, a significant portion of which will be spent by public authorities."

The Indian Pharma industry is therefore rightly worried about the introduction of an IPR clause that leads to seizure of a generic manufacturer's bank accounts and immovable property on mere suspicion of a patent infringement. Such a step can imperil local industry. At the same time, imports of highly subsidised and cheaper dairy and poultry products from EU, the Indian dairy industry, employing 3.2 million farmers, will be hurt. India is the biggest producer and consumer of milk and dairy products. So far India has been protecting its dairy industry. But with pressure mounting from European Union, Australia and New Zealand for opening up the dairy sector, India is giving in. Similarly, the sharp cut in import duties for cars will impact job creation in the automobile sector. These are just broad three concerns that India cannot afford to overlook.