Ram Inaniya, 31, a farmer and co-founder of Aam Kisan Union, at a May 2018 meeting with farmers in Bandi village of southwestern Madhya Pradesh. At such meetings, farmers learned to calculate claim payouts, and eventually approached the district consumer forum against low claim payouts under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana.
 
This follows similar actions by farmers in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. Farmers from across the country have alleged that payment of insurance claims under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY), launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in February 2016, has been meagre or entirely non-existent, and that the scheme’s real beneficiaries have been insurance companies.  
 
At its launch three years ago, Prime Minister Modi had claimed the scheme would protect the country’s farmers more comprehensively than existing schemes, and at “the lowest-ever premium rate”.

 
 
The launch was a key step to quell mounting unrest among farmers, and to mitigate some of the risk inherent in India’s largely rainfed agriculture, which is also being ravaged by climate change. Some 300,000 farmers are reported to have committed suicide since 1995, and farm distress has become a key electoral issue ahead of the 2019 general election.
 
To investigate how the scheme is faring on the ground, FactChecker visited Harda and Morena districts in southwestern and northern Madhya Pradesh in central India. In addition to low claim payout, all farmers we interacted with complained that they had not been issued receipts for signing up with the scheme and therefore did not know the terms of their contract. Some said they had been duped into paying “premiums” to fraudsters who had simply disappeared with their money.
 
Overall, the picture that emerged was of a poorly implemented scheme whose basic infrastructure and procedures have still not been established.
 
This story continues a FactChecker series evaluating the government’s flagship programmes in the run-up to the 2019 general election. The first of this series investigated the government’s rural-jobs programme (here, here and here); the second spoke about the Swachh Bharat (Clean India) Mission’s sewage problem; the third (here, here and here) evaluated the Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana (Prime Minister’s electricity-to-all-homes programme); the fourth, the fudging of open-defecation-free (ODF) status data and shoddy toilet construction–amid evident enthusiasm–in Uttar Pradesh, which was declared ODF on December 31, 2018; the fifth, similar fudging of data and widespread open defecation in Gujarat, which was declared ODF on October 2, 2017; and the sixth explaining how the skills-development mission was set to miss deadlines.
 
‘Incorrect calculations’
Two-and-a-half years after PMFBY was rolled out, farmers of Dhankar village of Sirali tehsil of Harda district in southwestern Madhya Pradesh assembled for a meeting on September 16, 2018, which was live-streamed on Facebook.
 
The agenda: How they had been “duped” under PMFBY.
 
“Yeh aankdon ki puri ladai hai. Aankdon ke aadhaar par humko ladni hai (This is a battle of numbers, and we must fight it with numbers),” said Kedar Sirohi, co-founder and former member of Harda-based Aam Kisan Union (Common Farmers’ Union).
 
Another union member helped break down the concepts–threshold yield, actual yield and scale of finance–key to calculating insurance claims under PMFBY.
 
In the end, using the scheme’s claim formula, they arrived at a claim of Rs 4,543 per acre for soybean crop–the compensation that each Dhankar farmer should have received.
 
Dhankar residents’ soybean fields had yielded 3 quintal per acre from the 2017 kharif crop (which grows from July-October during the south-west monsoon), as against the village’s usual average of 5 quintal per acre, according to the agriculture department’s yield estimates.
 
The insurance company had paid them Rs 1,700 per acre–62.5% less.
 
Aam Kisan Union has been organising kisan pathshalas (farmers’ study groups) in some 35 villages. “Hamari aur unki ganana mein antar hai,” Sirohi had said at the meeting in Dhankar. “Yeh ladai hamari bima company se hai (Our fight is against the insurance company),” Sirohi said.
 
By this he meant the Agriculture Insurance Company of India, which is government-owned, and is one of the 18 public and private insurance firms implementing PMFBY across the country.
 

 
Dissatisfaction led more than 200 farmers from 30 villages in Harda to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, after dharnas and unsuccessful appeals to the district authorities. “That is when we began approaching lawyers for redress,” said Ram Inaniya, an Aam Kisan Union co-founder. Many complaints were then lodged with the consumer forum from October 2018 onwards, which are currently being heard, he said.
 
Claim payouts shrink
In kharif 2016, PMFBY replaced the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme and the Modified National Agriculture Insurance Scheme.

 
 
“This is a crop insurance with a difference and the difference is absolutely critical to the Indian farmer. The farmer is going to pay less… and in the event of a crop failure he (/she) is going to be paid more,” union minister Arun Jaitley had said in March 2016.
 
From 2011-12 to 2015-16, claims paid were in excess of premiums collected. After PMFBY’s launch, in 2016-17, the situation was reversed and the amount of claims settled was 69.71% of the amount of premium collected (which is termed ‘claims ratio’).
 
The 2017-18 annual report of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India revealed that 11 private insurance companies had earned a profit of Rs 3,074 crore ($433.03 million) from crop insurance schemes–a transformation from the previous no-profit situation.
 
In 2017-18, the second year of PMFBY’s implementation, the claims ratio fell further–against a total premium collection of Rs 25,140 crore ($3.5 billion), 49% or Rs 12,408 crore ($1.74 billion), was paid out as claims.
 

 
In the two years of PMFBY, insurance companies collectively earned Rs 19,455.64 crore ($2.74 billion). As our ground report from Madhya Pradesh shows, they had not invested adequately to create infrastructure such as tehsil-level offices and loss assessors, as required under the scheme’s operational guidelines.
 
Moreover, the share of the government’s premium paid to insurance companies is not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, as CAG’s 2017 report noted.
 
Senior journalist and founder editor of the People’s Archive of Rural India, P. Sainath, has described the scheme as a scam. “It’s not about one private corporation, but over a dozen of them benefit in crores of rupees of public money,” he tweeted on November 13, 2018.

 
 
PMFBY has also been criticised for involuntary enrolment. A farmers’ group has filed a public interest litigation in the Ahmedabad High Court against the scheme’s provision that mandatorily enrols farmers for PMFBY when they apply for bank loans. Some 74% of farmers enrolled in 2016-17 and 2017-18 are loanees.
 
Claims not settled
Anil Jat, a 32-year-old farmer and lawyer from Bichhapur village of Timarni tehsil in Harda, holds an account with the State Bank of India (SBI) under the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) scheme that aims to provide farmers with quick and timely access to affordable credit.
 
All regular KCC borrowers are mandatorily enrolled with PMFBY and premium is deducted automatically from their accounts each season. Jat had Rs 2,412 debited from his account on July 31, 2017, as premium to insure his soybean crop for kharif 2017.
 

Anil Jat, 32, a farmer and lawyer from Bichhapur village of Timarni tehsil in Harda district in southwestern Madhya Pradesh, has sued the Agriculture Insurance Company of India in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. He is also representing some 200 farmers from Harda who have filed similar complaints against the company for paying them meagre or no compensation for crop loss under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana.
 
On September 24, 2017, excessive rain inundated Jat’s 8.5-acre soybean farm. Within the stipulated 48-hour time limit to apprise authorities of the damage, Jat wrote to the AIC. “Up to 85% of our soybean crop is damaged in the flood,” he wrote in a September 26, 2017, letter addressed to the AIC general manager and submitted to the district agriculture department. AIC has no office in Harda district, though PMFBY operational guidelines require insurance firms to set up a functional office in each tehsil of each district under their jurisdiction.
 
The same day, he also submitted a claim form, as required under the scheme, to his bank. The form was countersigned by the branch manager of SBI’s Timarni branch confirming that Jat’s premium had been remitted.
 
As per the guidelines, the insurance company must appoint a loss assessor within 48 hours of intimation of loss. The damage is to be jointly assessed by the loss assessor, the affected farmer and a block-level agriculture officer.
 
Jat said he received no such information or visit. Therefore, he filed a complaint against AIC at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
 
“A survey has been carried out by the loss evaluation committee constituted at the district-level,” AIC said in its reply to the consumer forum’s notice on Jat’s complaint. “Action on the committee’s survey report is in process.”
 
The guidelines require claims on individual complaints of localised loss to be settled within 15 days of submission of loss evaluation report and 29 days of loss intimation. Jat should have received compensation by the end of October 2017.
 
“If we do not intimate our loss in time and submit the claim form, we do not become eligible for compensation. But, when insurance firms do not honour their end of timelines, they face no serious consequences,” Jat said. There are at least eight other farmers in and around his village whose claims of individual and localised loss have not been settled, he added.
 
More figures and calculations
Two months after he filed his complaint at the consumer forum and 10 months after he claimed compensation, Jat received an amount of Rs 4,423 in August 2018. “With 85% damage, I lost around 30 quintals of soybean and more than Rs 60,000,” he told Factchecker.
 
The claim figure had been calculated based on the end-of-season yield estimate of the agriculture department using a method called ‘crop-cutting experiment’.
 
To the figure arrived at with this method, an ‘Area Correction Factor’ had been applied, which had downsized the claims of all farmers in his village, Jat said.
 

Area Correction Factor
 
This is a provision introduced in PMFBY to address excess insurance coverage, which happens when, for instance, some farmers in an area who are insured for a particular crop switch to another crop at sowing time.
 

*1 hectare = 2.47 acres
*Insurance unit area in Madhya Pradesh is the gram panchyayat (village council)
Source: PMFBY operational guidelines
 

Source: AIC’s reply to notice issued by consumer forum on Jat’s complaint
 
To arrive at the area correction factor, the area sown is divided by the area insured, and the resultant figure is multiplied by the sum for which each hectare is insured (or ‘scale of finance’). The insurance sum is pre-decided by district-level technical committees each year, based on the cost of cultivation. It varies from crop to crop and district to district.
 
When the Area Correction Factor is applied, the scale of finance gets considerably reduced,  in turn diminishing the claim amount.
 

 
Jat’s own calculation led to a claim of Rs 47,600, based on figures that Aam Kisan Union had obtained from the state agriculture department. Applying Area Correction Factor reduced his claim by 91% to Rs 4,423, he said.
 
“This is the pattern across the district,” said Inaniya. “We obtained past seven years’ yield data from the agriculture department to calculate average and threshold yields. Then, we also computed the claim amounts ourselves to cross-check with what we had received from the company.”
 
The union claims to have discovered large and blanket cutbacks in compensation in 55 villages of the district, some by more than Rs 5,000 per acre, so that the claims received by some farmers were less than the premiums debited from their accounts.
 
There is no mention of Area Correction Factor in the scheme guidelines that were in operation in kharif 2017, Inaniya said. Although the 2016 operational guidelines have a section called ‘Acreage Discrepancy’ as a provision to address excess insurance, the term ‘Area Correction Factor’ does not feature in the guidelines, and appears for the first time in the 2018 revised operational guidelines. Neither set of guidelines lays out a formula or method for calculating Area Correction Factor and how it is to be applied.
 
Area Correction Factor should be completely done away with from the scheme, Devinder Sharma, an agriculture researcher who has written extensively on PMFBY, told Factchecker. “It is inherently flawed as a concept. Why should farmers be penalised [have their claims reduced] for no fault of theirs?” he said, adding, “The scheme is flawed in its design. The government has connived in insuring the insurance firms’ profits instead of farmers’ losses.”
 
Jat, who is representing more than 200 farmers at the consumer forum against AIC, said the majority of complaints are against small payouts. “There are also some farmers who have not received any claims while some others whose claims on individual, localised losses were not settled,” he said. “A wide range of omissions on the part of insurance companies have emerged from these cases.”
 
In entangled surveys and data, farmers suffer
Explaining why the need to use Area Correction Factor arises, DS Verma, assistant director of agriculture in Harda, said the size of the sown area differs from the insured area because the two data sets are prepared at different points in time.
 
To take a loan for a kharif crop, a farmer applies at the bank and submits land ownership documents such as khasra and khatauni–which are issued to each landowning  farmer by the state revenue department and include details of the farmer’s land area and the crops cultivated on it–in April and May.
 
The insured area in a gram panchayat (village council) is determined by collating this information from banks. However, during sowing time in June and July, a farmer may decide to sow different crops from those mentioned in his land documents based on weather and other considerations.
 
The sown area is then determined by a survey called girdawari carried out by the state revenue department towards the end of August. “But, by this time, premiums are already debited from farmers’ accounts and remitted to insurance companies,” Verma said.
 
The 2018 revised operational guidelines require farmers to submit a form along with a sowing certificate issued by the tehsildar (the revenue official of a tehsil–an administrative division within a district, called taluk, taluq or taluka in other states), to the bank in case of change of crop.
 
“In other insurance policies such as car insurance, the insurance company ensures that a physical inspection of the car is carried out. Why is this system not followed by companies for crop insurance then?” Sharma, the agriculture researcher, said, adding that the burden of providing documents and proof should not rest with the farmer alone.
 
The responsibility of carrying out crop-cutting experiments (to estimate end-of-season crop-wise yield in every gram panchayat, currently carried out by the agriculture department) must also be delegated to insurance firms, Sharma said. “If the companies employ staff at the tehsil level for these various tasks, it would also generate employment,” he said.
 

Santosh Punia (left), sarpanch of Nandara gram panchayat in Handiya tehsil of Harda district in southwestern Madhya Pradesh, said farmers in his village had received claims of just Rs 1,530 per acre. “Farmers of our neighbouring village, Gogiya, received as much as 10,000 per acre,” he said, due to a data entry error that left 2,013.73 acres of soybean crop under-represented as 497.47 acres, reducing the compensation amount that the insurance company paid farmers.
 
In one instance, data entry errors in the sowing report led to incorrect claims in Harda. In September 2018, when claims were being disbursed, the Harda district collector’s office detected the errors. The correct data were then sent to AIC on December 17, 2018, but farmers said they had not received the remaining compensation.
 
“Three hundred farmers in our village were supposed to receive Rs 9,273 per acre in claims. But, we have only received Rs 1,530 per acre,” said Santosh Punia, sarpanch of Handiya tehsil’s Nandara gram panchayat, which is affected due to the error.
 
An official from the district agriculture department, who wished to remain unnamed, said the girdawari method should be revised–instead of preparing a consolidated report of the entire area, the girdawari should identify individual farmers and corresponding crops. This, he added, should be followed by returning excess premium collected, if any, to farmers who have changed their crop to a low-premium or non-notified crop so farmers do not feel cheated. (Every year, state governments notify–announce on an official list–the names of gram panchayats and crops to be covered under PMFBY. If a crop or a village is not notified, it is not eligible to be insured.)
 
At present, the excess insured area is treated as uninsured and the corresponding premium forfeited and given to the central government.
 
Responding to queries about farmers’ complaints, Supartha Patnaik, regional manager of AIC’s Bhopal regional office, told Factchecker: “We are only implementing rules made by the government…[Anybody] is free to approach the Forum and we will also deal with it in the Forum.”
 
The scheme is implemented by multiple agencies and it is not right to indict only AIC for shortfalls, Patnaik said, adding, “Notification is issued by the state government, data entry of farmers is done by banks, yield data is then submitted by the state government, and then there is claim calculation and remittance. For the end product of one agency, there is raw material from another.”
 
Lack of information, and fraudulent ‘agents’
Suresh Lal, who owns three acres of farmland in Arroda village of Kailaras tehsil in Morena district in northern Madhya Pradesh, recollects the day in October 2018 when he was embezzled. “I was about to begin sowing pearl millet. A person who called himself an insurance company’s agent took Rs 150 from me as insurance premium for my rabi crop. He said that the crop would be surveyed and the bank would send a receipt. But, nothing happened,” he told Factchecker in Arroda in December 2018.
 
Such incidents are common, said Omprakasah Shriwash, another farmer from Arroda who is a member of the All India Kisan Sabha, adding that without receipts or acknowledgement papers, farmers do not know if the person who took money from them was in fact an insurance agent or a fraudster.
 
The 2017 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India concluded that 63% of the farmers it had surveyed had no knowledge of PMFBY details such as rates of premium, risk covered, claims and assessment.
 

Vandana Chhapre (on the left), the sarpanch of Kapasi gram panchayat in Rehatgaon tehsil of Harda district in southwestern Madhya Pradesh, along with other farmers. She said they had received no official information in any format about PMFBY’s procedures. “What we know about it is through hearsay and from newspapers. Only our premium gets deducted from KCC accounts every season. Unseasonal rain is a common reason for crop damage here. But, we have never received any claims,” she said.
 
“There is no information sent to the gram panchayat too on the procedures and details of PMFBY,” Vandana Chhapre, sarpanch of Kapasi gram panchayat in Rehatgaon tehsil of Harda, told Factchecker.
 
The 2018 revised guidelines make it clear that banks must ensure that an “Acknowledgement Receipt along with Folio” are supplied to each insured farmer within seven days of the insurance company’s acceptance of insurance applications. An SMS (text message on mobile phone) is to be automatically generated through the National Crop Insurance Portal and sent to all insured farmers. The portal is designed and maintained by the central government, and is the central platform for maintaining all data pertaining to the scheme.
 
As our reporting from the ground shows, three years after the scheme’s commencement, this fundamental system has not been put in place.
 
“Premium is directly debited based on the farmers’ KCC [Kisan Credit Card] details,” Ajit Bhagat, assistant branch head of UCO Bank in Harda, told Factchecker, “No separate forms are taken from loanee farmers. So, no acknowledgement slip is also given. The passbook entry can be used by farmers as a record of insurance enrollment.”
 
From the rabi season of 2018-19, the central government may issue a written acknowledgement to farmers, Patnaik said. “An inland letter will be sent to insured farmers,” he said, adding, “When we get a directive from the head office, we will implement it.”
 
Although Patnaik admitted that there was a disconnect with farmers, he said AIC had no plan yet to set up offices at the district and tehsil level. “We have a field-level officer who sits in the collectorate to address farmers’ grievances and we have regular district-level meetings to sort out issues,” he added.
 
Adivasi farmers in forest villages not covered
Adivasi farmers in Harda also pointed out that forest villages have not been notified under the scheme and are therefore excluded altogether.
 

Korku adivasi farmers of a forest village, Bodhi, in Rehatgaon tehsil of Harda district in southwestern Madhya Pradesh. Most farmers in Bodhi own 1-2 acres of land. They said rainfall has been scanty in the past 2-3 years, reducing their wheat yield from 5 quintals per acre to 2 quintals. Yet, 45 forest villages in Harda are not notified as insurance unit areas under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, making farmers here ineligible to apply for insurance under the scheme.
 
Korku adivasis in Harda’s Rehatgaon tehsil said their land is uneven and rainfall scanty. “We face a lot of water shortage too unlike the revenue villages in the plains that are irrigated by canals,” said Faggu Panse, sarpanch of Bodhi gram panchayat in Rehatgaon tehsil of Harda. Bodhi is among the 45 forest villages in Harda that are not notified under PMFBY, making farmers of these villages ineligible for the scheme.
 
Revenue villages are those where land is administered by the revenue department while forest villages, which are remotely situated in forests, are administered by the forest department. Since the MP government has not notified forest villages, farmers is these villages are ineligible for PMFBY. However, Adivasi farmers in notified gram panchayats are eligible.
 
“We had received compensation from the forest department a few years ago when hailstorm destroyed our crop. But, we do not get compensated when crops suffer because of dry spells and water scarcity,” Panse said. Their wheat yield, Bodhi’s farmers said, had fallen from 5 quintals per acre to 2 quintals because of poor rainfall.  
 

A parched wheat field in Bodhi, a Korku adivasi village in Rehatgaon tehsil of Harda district in southwestern Madhya Pradesh.
 
Devendar Bhadoria of Dharti Gramothan Evam Sahabhagi Gramin Vikas Samiti, a non-government organisation that works with Sahariya adivasis in Sheopur district of northern Madhya Pradesh, also highlighted the adivasis’ peculiar realities.
 
“A lot of them did not have Aadhaar cards and bank accounts. We facilitated them in completing these processes so they could apply for PMFBY. But, none of them received any claims despite crop failures,” said Bhadoria.
 
Back at the consumer court, Jat is hopeful. On January 23, 2019, three farmers received additional claim payouts of up to Rs 50,000 each, more than what they had first received in August 2018. “The amounts have been credited as supplementary insurance even before the final court hearing.”
 
(Kulkarni is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist.)
 
This story is part of “Modi’s Report Card”, a series evaluating flagship government programmes in the run up to the 2019 general elections. You can read a set of stories on the rural jobs programme here, here and here; on the rural electrification programme here, here and here; on Swachh Bharat Mission here, here and here; and on skills-development mission here.

First Published on https://factchecker.in/
 

The post As PM’s Crop Insurance Fails, 200 Angry Madhya Pradesh Farmers Move Consumer Court Against Insurance Firms appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“It is the same ‘mono’ aushadh (insecticide/medicine) that all of us in the village spray on cotton,” said Srikrishna Gedam, Madavi’s neighbour in Chak Mankapur, an adivasi village in eastern Maharashtra’s Chandrapur district.

On August 26, 2018, Rushi Madavi had left home to spray pesticide on the family’s 5-acre cotton farm in Pendhari village, 2 km from his home. When he returned home around 3 pm, he complained of giddiness.

“He ate one roti but began vomiting soon after. He could not speak. We called an ambulance from the hospital in Sawali,” said Rekha. He was given a saline drip at the hospital, but when his condition deteriorated he was referred to the district general hospital in Gadchiroli, about 30 km away.

Rushi died that night in Gadchiroli. “Acute respiratory distress syndrome due to insecticidal poisoning, with hypotension and severe anaemia,” said the death certificate that his youngest son, Bhimrao, 25, showed us.

Rushi Madavi was allegedly spraying monocrotophos, classified by the World Health Organization as a ‘highly hazardous’ insecticide, on his 5-acre cotton farm, when he accidentally inhaled its toxic fumes. Rushi died on August 27, 2018. Photo courtesy: Rekha Madavi

Rushi was not the only victim of insecticide poisoning this year in eastern Maharashtra. In two months, between August 2018 and September 2018, it had killed two other farmers in Chandrapur and Akola districts: Kumdeo Gurnule, 35, of Akapur village in Sawali taluka on September 13, 2018, and Vijay Sardar, 32, of Dahigaon village, Akola, on August 12, 2018.

In 2017, 63 farmers and farm labourers died from the fatal effects of handling toxic pesticides in Maharashtra, most from eastern and northeastern parts; of them, at least 21 deaths were from Yavatmal district in the Vidarbha region.

Cotton, the second-most cultivated crop in Vidarbha after soyabean, accounts for 50% of total pesticide use in India. It grows on 1.6 million hectares of land across Vidarbha’s nine cotton-growing districts in the 2018 kharif (monsoon) cropping season.

Apart from the three deaths this year, accidental exposure to pesticides during spraying has landed 135 farmers from Yavatmal in hospitals since July 2018, according to district health office records. Our investigations showed that farmers in these parts routinely seek medical treatment–medicines, injections and saline drips–to deal with giddiness, vomiting and blurred vision caused by pesticide poisoning.

Our investigations showed that safety kits to be used while handling or spraying pesticides are not available in adequate numbers at krishi seva kendras (village-level stores that sell agricultural inputs). Instruction pamphlets distributed by the agriculture department do not reach all farmers. And pesticide containers are sold without measuring cups. Unregistered pesticides too are available for sale, according to local farmers. This is in violation of the Insecticides Act, 1968.  

Pesticides can cause immediate health effects in people who are preparing, mixing or using them, said the 2016 guidelines on highly hazardous pesticides published by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Pesticides enter the body through the skin (contact), the lungs (inhalation) and the mouth (ingestion), according to another 2016 scientific paper, ‘Farmers’ Exposure to Pesticides: Toxicity Types and Ways of Prevention’. Inhalation of pesticide fumes results in serious damage to the nose, throat, and lung tissues, the paper said. Symptoms include dizziness, breathlessness and vomiting.

Last year’s recommendations yet to be fully implemented
In the lane parallel to Rushi’s house, Srikrishna Gedam pointed to an array of insecticides he had been using this kharif season. Among these is a container with the brand name ‘Monostar’. It is a highly toxic insecticide called monocrotophos that consists of organophosphorus compounds.

Insecticides used by Srikrishna Gedam on his 7-acre cotton and 2-acre paddy farm in Chak Mankapur village, Sawali taluka of Chandrapur district. Two of the insecticides–monocrotophos and cypermethrin–are classified as hazardous by the World Health Organization, and one–Humica–is not registered by the government.

Organophosphate pesticides, which proved fatally toxic for Rushi Madavi, can lead to convulsions, coma and sometimes, death, according to the 2016 scientific paper cited earlier. But farmers insisted that its use is unavoidable, at least in the first cycle of pest control for cotton crop.

Monostar, a brand of monocrotophos insecticide, which Rushi Madavi was allegedly using. It is classified as highly hazardous by the World Health Organization and was banned by the Maharashtra government for two months in 2017. Yet, it is commonly used by cotton farmers in the region.

Gedam did not get the protective kit that is supposed to be worn while handling the insecticide. He also did not get the leaflet that carries cautionary instructions for users. “He covers the face with a scarf sometimes,” said Surekha, his wife.

Following the spate of deaths in 2017, the Maharashtra government had set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe their circumstances and recommend preventive measures. Two petitions–one in the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court and one in the Supreme Court–had also been filed by activists to demand a permanent ban on hazardous pesticides.

While the Supreme Court is hearing the petition filed in October 2017 to ban the use of pesticides banned or restricted in other countries, many recommendations made by the SIT are still on paper.

As many as 21 state-specific recommendations were listed in the SIT’s 56-page report concluded on November 27, 2017, to improve the monitoring and outreach mechanisms of the state agriculture department. These ranged from a ban on the sale of monocrotophos and creating a comprehensive information portal on pesticides to making safety kits available to all farmers and registration of all agricultural labourers and regular health checks for them.

At least 11 recommendations have yet to be implemented and the status of seven are unclear. Three of the recommendations–identifying pest hotspots in villages, training krishi seva kendra retailers and publicising biopesticides–have been accepted and implemented.

Why no permanent ban on toxic insecticides
The state government had, on November 1, 2017, banned three insecticides–monocrotophos, acephate, diafenthiuron–and two combination insecticides–fipronil + imidacloprid and profenofos + cypermethrin–for a period of two months in five districts.

Barring diafenthiuron, all the other insecticides and combinations are classified under class 1b (highly hazardous) and II (moderately hazardous) by the WHO. Based on their oral and dermal toxicity, pesticides are classified by the WHO into five categories: These range from class 1a (extremely hazardous) to Class U (unlikely to cause hazard).

In the current pesticide spraying time, however, there is no ban on any of these pesticides.

“A proposal to ban these five insecticides again is under consideration. A decision is yet to be taken,” said Vijay Chaudhari, deputy secretary, department of agriculture, Maharashtra. “But we will be able to ban it only for 60 days.” A state government may prohibit sale, distribution and use of any insecticide, for not exceeding 60 days if it is likely to involve risk to human beings or animals, as per Section 27 (1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

The powers to permanently ban or cancel registration of insecticides rests with the central government, state government officials maintained. Bijay Kumar, then additional chief secretary, department of agriculture, Maharashtra wrote, on March 27, 2018, to the secretary, central insecticides board and registration committee (CIBRC) at the union ministry of agriculture, to permanently ban these five pesticides. Six months on, there has been no response yet.

Not enough protective gear or instructions for farmers
“Agriculture department must make personal protective equipment available to all farmers and farm labourers through krishi seva kendras,” the SIT report had stated.

Section 39 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 requires persons handling insecticides during application to wear a protective suit consisting of overalls, hat, goggles, boots and gloves. Section 40 also provides for respirators to be used by workers and Section 42 stipulates that pesticide manufacturers and distributors must arrange for worker training in safety precautions.

Ajay Potwar, who runs a krishi seva kendra, Shri Sai Traders, at the Sawali taluka headquarters, has not had any protective kits supplied to him for distribution among farmers. “We have been given four kits by the companies which we lend to farmers as and when they need it and (they) are asked to return it after use,” he said.

Like most stores, none of the pesticide containers at Potwar’s store had instruction leaflets or measurement caps attached to them. “We give these to the farmers separately,” he said. Every insecticide package should include a leaflet, as per Section 18 (1) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971. Providing measurement caps with pesticide containers was one of the SIT’s recommendations.

Pesticide containers at a krishi seva kendra (village-level store that sells agricultural inputs) in Sawali taluka, Chandrapur district. Measurement cap and leaflets are not attached to the containers. They are given to the farmers separately at the time of purchase. Insecticides Rules, 1971, mandate for a leaflet to be included with every insecticide package.

“It is important for safety kits too to be attached and sold along with pesticides,” said PR Madavi, Sawali taluka agriculture officer. “The problem is that they have to be separately bought by farmers and many do not end up buying.”

An insecticide container for sale in a krishi seva kendra in Umarkhed taluka, Yavatmal district. Leaflet and measurement cap are attached with every container. Retailers and farmers said that the enforcement of safety norms had improved after 21 pesticide poisoning deaths were reported in the district between August and October 2017.

Pesticide consumption and usage in Maharashtra was the highest–13,496 metric tonnes–in India in 2016-17, according to data maintained by the directorate of plant protection, quarantine and storage. The pesticide industry in India that manufactures different crop protection products–insecticides, fungicides, weedicides, herbicides, biopesticides and plant growth regulators–reported annual sales of over Rs 13,000 crore ($1.76 billion) in 2015.

Why is there laxity in using safety kits then? “Farmers complain that the protective kit with the head gear and the coat is too hot to be worn in the climate here,” said Madavi, citing one commonly heard reason.

In such conditions, the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides framed by the Food and Agriculture Organization has advised prohibition of harmful pesticides.

Section 3.5 of the Code states that pesticides whose handling and application require the use of uncomfortable or inaccessible personal protective equipment should be avoided.

But, these guidelines remain on paper too.

Awareness is up in Yavatmal but farm labourers still unsafe
Some stores in Yavatmal were making an attempt to raise awareness about the need to adopt safety measures, we found. For instance, at the Sagar Krishi Kendra in Umarkhed taluka headquarters, a mannequin clad in protective gear was on display.

A mannequin clad in safety gear on display for awareness at a krishi seva kendra in Umarkhed taluka, Yavatmal district. The protective gear is mandated to be worn by farmers and farmer labourers at the time of spraying pesticides on the fields.

The taluka agriculture office here has held many training sessions for retailers to ensure that they spread awareness among farmers and urge them to buy protective kits, said store owner Rehanulla Khan.

Khan has sold 290 kits this season. Each kit is priced at Rs 195 and includes a cap, a face mask, overalls and gloves. Boots are not included in this deal though Section 39 of the Insecticides Rules mandates it.

The store caters to farmers from around 25 villages in the vicinity. “At least 50% of the farmers are abiding by these precautions now,” said Khan. He has also sold 1,800 pheromone traps (that trap male moths and keep them from multiplying) this season. These traps are advised as a safe substitute for heavy insecticide spraying.

A pheromone trap for sale at a krishi seva kendra in Umarkhed taluka, Yavatmal district. It attracts and traps pests–male moths–on cotton crop and is recommended by the agriculture department as a substitute to large-scale pesticide spraying. Each trap is priced at Rs 75.

After the 2017 tragedy in Yavatmal when 21 deaths were recorded in the three months leading to October, the district administration had moved to initiate safety measures. But it wasn’t enough, said local farmers.

At the gram panchayat office in Akoli in Yavatmal’s Umarkhed taluka, Baburao Waghmare, the deputy sarpanch, and other farmers showed us the three kits that the government had given them.

“Anybody who needs it can borrow from here, use and return. One of these has been borrowed by a farmer,” Waghmare said. The other two, however, were unused and items such as goggles and gloves have not even been unpacked yet.

A safety kit–apron, gloves, goggles and mask–provided by the agriculture department to the Akoli gram panchayat for use by farmers when needed. Two of the three kits were unused and yet to be unpacked. Boots and a hat are also mandated to be included in a safety kit.

“Yes, the government gave the gram panchayat kits for us to use. But, our spraying rounds were almost over by then,” said Dnyaneshwar Shire, 36, a farmer and farm labourer from Akoli said. Shire was admitted at the Nanded district hospital last year for 10 days because he showed symptoms of pesticide poisoning.

“Even now, if I spray for two days, I have to rest the next three days. I dread going to work on others’ farms now,” said Shire, who jointly owns three acres of land with his two brothers. In spraying season, he spends around Rs 400 every month on doctors’ fees and medicines, he said.

Delay in disbursement of compensation for pesticide poisoning
For Rohidas Jadhav, 38, a landless daily wage labourer from Amaanpur village in Umarkhed taluka, pesticide spraying is off the list of jobs he can take on.

On September 14, 2017, after seven days of continuous pesticide spraying, Jadhav had blacked out, his tongue swollen and unable to speak. “I was admitted to the intensive care unit of a private hospital in Pusad for two days and ended up spending up to Rs 30,000. I cannot afford to do this again,” Jadhav said. He did not get any compensation for his medical expenses.

Jadhav now only works on sugarcane farms and takes up other civil and electrical works. His two daughters, Mona and Lekha, have dropped out of school after Class 7 and now work as labourers on farms.

Rohidas Jadhav, 38, with his wife and daughters, Mona and Lekha, outside their home in Amaanpur village of Yavatmal district’s Umarkhed taluka. The family does not own any land and lives off daily wage labour. Jadhav was admitted to a private hospital last year after he accidentally inhaled pesticides while labouring on a farm. Jadhav’s family spent Rs 30,000 towards treatment and has received no government aid.

To mitigate these hardships, the Maharashtra government had, on July 19, 2018, come out with a compensation policy of Rs 4 lakh for the families of those who died due to pesticide poisoning. Those disabled by pesticide poisoning were to be granted Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh and those hospitalised, Rs 1,000 to Rs 14,000.

But, there have been delays in disbursing these amounts too. Shalu–widow of Sainath Madavi who died on October 17, 2017–received Rs 2 lakh in August 2018, 10 months after her husband died. She is entitled to Rs 4 lakh as per the compensation policy. She has been struggling to repay loans, manage household expenses and care for her two school-going daughters with limited income from her 2-acre farm and daily wage labour.

“It is only after I got the compensation money that I could repay Rs 60,000 to a krishi seva kendra owner from whom we had taken a loan,” she said.

The compensation amounts are drawn from two separate funds and separate proposals have to be sent to the state authorities, explained Chandrapur collector Kunal Khemnar. “We have sent the proposal for an additional amount of Rs 2 lakh and will disburse it when we receive it,” he said.

Other important recommendations of the SIT were to distribute pamphlets in villages, hold fortnightly meetings on pest control measures and fill vacant posts in the agriculture department to reduce workload and strengthen outreach.

However, 28% posts in the state’s agriculture department are vacant, according to data collected from the department. Of the taluka-level posts of taluka agriculture officers and quality control inspectors, 40% are vacant.

Public awareness meetings were held once a month in every village, said BV Nandanwar, agriculture supervisor, Sawali taluka. “We have also distributed over 8,000 pamphlets on different aspects of pest control,” he added. There are more than 27,140 rural households in Sawali taluka.

Chak Mankapur shifted from paddy to cotton, and the problem worsened
Rushi’s village has seen another pesticide death in 2017. Sainath Madavi, 35, died on October 17, 2017, of insecticide poisoning. He had been spraying three insecticides–Hamla 550, Polar and Quick–as per the police report.

Gedam, 40, pointed to the insecticide containers and a plant growth regulator (solvent that boosts crop growth) stored in his farm. “I have started using all of these only in the past two to three years,” he said.

A paddy-cultivating village of around 60 adivasi families, Chak Mankapur was introduced to cotton farming only three years ago. It has now become popular among farmers because despite the heavy investment it demands, cotton brings in higher incomes. But cotton cultivation has also brought with it distinct farming practices. Of all the crops, cotton required the most pesticide treatment–four to eight rounds in a season–due to high risk of pest infestation, said farmers.

“It is most unfortunate that food producers of this region have now taken to cultivating commercial crops,” said Paromita Goswami, president of Shramik Elgar, a farmers’ and labourers’ union in Chandrapur. “What is needed is a more holistic intervention than incremental steps in response to one-off accidents.”

Gedam’s pesticide collection included ‘Humica’ which consists of humic acid–a substance containing humus among other contents. But the pesticide bottle bears no registration number and does not feature in the list of pesticides approved by the CIBRC. Gedam spends up to Rs 12,000 every season on the pesticides he uses on his 7-acre cotton farm and 2-acre paddy farm.

“In the cropping season, I take four to five injections (to treat symptoms of pesticide exposure). We don’t have any other effective alternative to these pesticides. All we can do is take timely medical treatment,” said Gedam.

(Kulkarni is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist.)

Courtesy: https://www.indiaspend.com/
 

The post Why Toxic Pesticides That Killed 3 Farmers In 2 Months Are Still In Use In Maharashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tejrao Bhakre, 57, in his tin-roofed, brick house in Goregaon Budruk village, Akola taluka and district in north eastern Maharashtra. Yield from his 2-acre cotton farm fell 84% last year. None of the benefits from crop insurance, bollworm compensation and loan waiver schemes have reached him. With no crop loan too, he was struggling to sow this season.

 
The tall farmer, clad in the white pajama-kurta-topi ensemble typical of rural Maharashtra, is saddled with a bank loan for Rs 80,000 which is three years overdue. He can’t seek fresh credit.
 
“All my bank and cooperative society accounts combined, my savings right now are just about Rs 1,500,” he said, sitting in his tin-roofed, brick house which has no proper lighting and cooling systems. Only one room has a table fan and a CFL light.
 
Bhakre, like most farmers, uses Bt cotton, a genetically modified seed that was engineered to be pest-resistant. Bt cotton dominates 99.53% of the cotton cropped area in Maharashtra. But last year, the larva of a small, greyish brown moth, called the pink bollworm, ravaged cotton fibre and bolls on Bhakre’s 2-acre cotton farm during the 2017 kharif (monsoon crop) season, slashing his yield from 17 quintals out of 0.75 acres in 2016-17 to 7 quintals from 2 acres in 2017-18.
 
Farmers in the region are now worried about a repeat of last year’s pink bollworm attack. The kharif season of 2017 witnessed the worst crisis in the history of Bt cotton since the seed technology was approved in India in 2002. In Maharashtra, which has the largest area under cotton, more than 80% of the crop was destroyed. The same year, poisoning during pesticide spraying killed over 45 farmers and farm labourers; over 1,000 others fell ill.
 
What happened to the seed technology that was supposed to revolutionise cotton farming in India?
 
“The primary basis for introducing Bt cotton was to reduce pesticide use and protect crop from bollworm attacks, thereby increasing yields. But, both have not happened,” said Kavitha Kuruganti, former member of a central government task force on organic and non-chemical farming. “On the other hand, insecticide use has risen, cotton diversity has been wiped out and there is a monopoly of one proprietary technology.”
 
Wearing out of Bt cotton’s resistance to pest has been gradual, according to experts. A January 2018 study released by Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) showed how the proportion of pink bollworm on green bolls of Bt cotton plants in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh rose from 5.71% in 2010 to 73.82% in 2017.
 
“Pink bollworm has not only reappeared as a major pest but has also taken just about 5-6 years to develop resistance to Bollgard-II,” said Keshav Kranthi, former CICR director and one of the scientists who undertook the study.
 
Bollgard-II (Bt-II) is a technology wherein two Bt proteins (crystal toxins- cry1Ac and cry2Ab) contained in a cotton seed have enhanced capacity to ward off three types of bollworms–American, spotted and pink bollworm.
 
The 2018 study warned that pink bollworm “if left unchecked” can cause “serious implications for the cotton sector in India”.
 
“The 2017 fiasco was not unexpected,” said Kranthi, who is currently the technical information head at International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC), an association of cotton producing countries. “The pink bollworm problem will persist and is likely to worsen over time as long as cotton crop is cultivated for a longer season beyond 180 days.”
 
He, however, pointed out that the failure of this technology is unique to India. None of the 14 other Bt cotton-growing countries have faced the problem because they follow pest management strategies such as short-season crop, pheromone-based monitoring and so on.
 
“China has been growing Bt cotton with only single gene (Cry1Ac) since 1997, but pink bollworm is not a problem there,” said Kranthi. “Pakistan also reported resistance last year but the pest does not multiply as the crop is not extended beyond 6-7 months due to cotton-wheat rotation.”
 
Bt Cotton: The revolution that failed
The Bt cotton crisis comes less than 20 years after it was talked about as the harbinger of the next green revolution. In 2003 and 2006, the government spoke of Bt cotton’s efficacy in bollworm control and reduction of pesticide use.
 
“The phenomenal achievements made through deployment of large number of private sector Bt cotton hybrids in the cotton production scenario have brought in a welcome change as regards production gains are concerned (sic),” stated a 2007-08 report of the All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Programme set up under the ministry of agriculture and farmers’ welfare.
 
Constructed in a US laboratory more than a quarter century ago by splicing in a family of proteins–toxic for many pests–from a soil bacterium, Bt cotton was supposed to be science’s answer to falling crop yields and growing use of pesticides.
 
From 2002 to 2009, cotton production, productivity and acreage grew steadily across India. In Maharashtra, production rose from 2.6 million bales in 2002-03 to 6.2 million bales in 2008-09; yields surged from 158 kg per hectare in 2002-03 to 336 kg per hectare in 2008-09. The increase in yields was commended despite “major cotton-growing area remaining under rainfed conditions”. From 2010, however, productivity oscillated in Maharashtra with a significant decline of 17% in 2011-12 and 13% in 2017-18.
 

Source: Department of Agriculture, Maharashtra
Note: Production in three south-western Maharashtra districts was 3,370 bales.
 

Source: All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project, Ministry of Agriculture
 

Source: Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture
 
Indian government scientists first revealed that transgenic Bt cotton was failing. Studies between 2013 and 2015 of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and CICR concluded that pink bollworm had developed resistance to Bollgard-II.
 
Then, it all rapidly went wrong.
 
How should farmers deal with pest attack? Govt has no plan, advice
In a decade to 2015-16, insecticide on cotton rose 79%–from 0.67 kg per hectare to 1.2 kg per hectare, as FactChecker reported on March 6, 2018.
 
Kranthi, in another paper in March 2016, blamed the government’s “casual approach in handling” of the technology for its susceptibility to pests. “At least six different Bt events (specific sets of transgenes) and more than a thousand Bt cotton hybrids were approved in four to five years without a roadmap for sustainable use,” he wrote.
 
In Vidarbha, cotton farmers like Seema Dhore, 42, from Goregaon Budruk, are waiting for some information and counsel on what to do if they have to tackle another year of pest infestation.
 
“Some people from a (seed) company visited our village and took down details of when the bollworm had attacked and how the crop was affected,” said. “But, that’s it. We are not informed about or equipped in any way to keep our cotton crop from being infested again this year.”
 
An alert for the oncoming kharif season was raised by the Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth (PDKV) in Akola in the June 2018 edition of its agriculture periodical: If no precautionary measures are taken, there could be an intensified bollworm attack and a greater loss of yield.
 
However, the government does not appear to have plans to address potential hardship. To start with, the three components of the Rs 30,800 per hectare compensation package for each dryland farmer on losses suffered in 2017 have not been implemented.
 
In the case of one compensation package, many villages did not get past the preliminary stage of filling up complaint forms. In another, farmers alleged that the methodology to determine compensation was flawed.
 
Although Maharashtra ranks second in cotton production in India and Vidarbha is the highest producer of cotton in the state, the region suffers from agricultural distress caused by successive droughts and a high suicide rate in recent years.
 
Between 2001 and June 2018, 15,186 farmers in Vidarbha have killed themselves–an average of 868 suicides every year and 72 every month–according to the state’s revenue department data. (Data relate to six districts; exclude Nagpur, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli.)
 
Compensation for bollworm disaster caught in red tape
In February 2018, the Maharashtra government brought out the first set of guidelines delineating eligibility criteria and reparation amount for cotton farmers who suffered crop loss in 2017-18 due to bollworm attack.
 
Then, in May 2018, a notification was issued on how the amounts were to be disbursed in three instalments. The grant was decided to be first sent to divisional commissionerates which would then be passed on to district collectorates which would then eventually credit the farmers’ bank accounts.
 
So far, Rs 929.23 crore–28.6% of the allocated Rs 3246.77 crore for 25 pink bollworm-affected districts in Maharashtra–has been transferred to district collectorates.
 

Source: Department of Relief & Rehabilitation, Maharashtra
 
On administering the first instalment, collectors were instructed to submit a fund utilisation certificate, display beneficiary information on their website and place a demand for the next instalment.
 
In Akola, for instance, from a total demand of Rs 135.51 crore for 133,668 affected farmers, only 23%–31,866 farmers–had received the money, according to data furnished by the collectorate.
 
Farmers in four of the six villages–Goregaon Budruk and Goregaon Khurd in Akola taluka, Takali Khureshi in Balapur taluka, and Dewarda in Akot taluka–in Akola district we spoke to had not received compensation.
 
“Of the Rs 36-crore grant that we received, 99% has been distributed,” said district collector Astik Kumar Pandey. “We have already placed a demand (for funds) for all phases. It is the system that is releasing money in phases.”
 

Farmers in Dewarda village of Akot taluka, Akola district, said they had neither received compensation for losses due to bollworm infestation on their cotton crop nor insurance benefit under the Prime Minister’s Crop Insurance Scheme nor the in the 2017 kharif season.
 
Phased release of the fund was necessary to ensure that it didn’t lie unutilised at the district-level, said a senior official from the state relief team who didn’t wish to be identified.
 
Farmers explain that money delivered late wouldn’t help them tide over the current crisis. “It is now, in the next five-to-six-days’ sowing span, that we are falling short of money,” said Baldev Patil from Degaon village in Balapur taluka. “Sowing coincides with payment of school fees and other related expenses of our children. At a time when money is most needed, we don’t have it”.
 
‘Compensation criteria faulty’
Farmers contend that land area with each farmer was not correctly recorded in the panchnamas/surveys conducted to measure crop loss.
 
“The inter-cropped intermediate rows of moong (green gram) and udid (black gram) that we had sown in our cotton farms were not counted,” said Prashant Ghogre, a cotton farmer from Takali Khureshi village, Balapur taluka. Half of the cotton cropped land was left out as rows of moong and udid were deducted, added Ghogre.
 
Farmers were particularly peeved with the survey methodology as intercropping is an advised practice to control occurrence of pest on cotton crop.
 

Source: Policy guidelines, Government of Maharashtra
Note: 1. Maximum two hectares of cotton cropped land is covered
2. Minimum compensation of Rs 1000 is provided
 
Akola taluka agriculture officer Narendra Shastri, however, said that the agriculture department had not received any formal complaints: “The survey date was announced in villages a day in advance and every farmer was asked to be present during the panchnama of his/her farm.”
 
Physical inspections were jointly carried out by talathis (village-level revenue department officials), gram sevaks (village council secretaries) and krishi sahayyaks (village-level agriculture department officials).
 
“We put up lists of farmers along with their cotton cultivated area in the gram panchayat offices after the panchnamas (were made). Anybody who was left out of the survey had up to three days to register a complaint,” said Shastri.
 
Inadequacy of the pay-out was another sore point. “Going by Rs 6,800 per hectare, we would get just about Rs 2,720 per acre,” said Ramesh Bhakre from Goregaon Budruk. “This is less than the price of what one quintal of cotton fetches.” Each acre produces up to 10 quintals of cotton and pink bollworm reduced the productivity by four quintals, on average, on every farm, farmers said.
 
Seed companies not penalised for reduced pest resistance
Another vital compensation component that fixes responsibility on seed firms for reneging on claims of pest resistance was barely implemented. Drawn from the Maharashtra Cotton Seed Rules, 2010, this policy allows farmers to complain against seed companies if their crop fails. Section 12 outlines the grounds on which farmers can complain and lays down procedures for the inspection of affected crop followed by a hearing and issuing of compensation by the companies to farmers.
 
A format for the complaint form, with which copies of seed purchase bills and empty seed containers are to be attached when compensation is requested, is specified under the rules. This process would allow a farmer to recover Rs 16,000 from a seed company, the government had announced.   
 
But, farmers in many villages were not even aware of this provision.
 
“Until now, we had not even heard that the government can recover any money from companies and pay it to us,” said Shivajirao Mhaisne, a farmer from Degaon village in Balapur taluka. “Most farmers do not save bills and packets because they have not been made aware of this redressal.”
 
Data with agriculture commissionerate indicated that around 1.34 million farmers covering about 1.16 million hectares had complained as per this provision and demanded compensation. This means that only about 32% of the 4.2 million cotton farmers in the state were included in this policy.
 
Of these, complaints of just 342,000 hectares have reached the hearing stage.
 
“No orders for compensation have been issued on any companies yet. Hearings are in progress,” said Vijaykumar Ingle, director of quality control, agriculture department, Maharashtra.
 
He admitted that the entire process was protracted and added that seed companies stress minute issues–delay of a few days in harvest, for example–to put the onus of seed failure on the farmer. “Since 2011 when the rules were enforced, the government has been able to issue orders for compensation to three seed companies, all of which had contested the order or moved court,” he said.
 
Mhaisne dismissed this aid as an announcement to mislead farmers.
 
“When the rules were framed in 2010, such a large-scale collapse of Bt seeds was not foreseen,” said an agriculture department official requesting anonymity. “There is a need to make the laws more stringent without heeding to the powerful seed lobby.”
 
With redress severely lacking, worries mount for the approaching season.
 
How outreach/awareness programmes floundered
A text message from the agriculture department in December 2017 to destroy all stocks and residue from the cotton crop was the only official communication on pest management that Bhakre received. In some villages, a further advisory was issued to plough and level the land after harvest to ensure complete destruction of bollworms.
 
But, these sporadic messages don’t seem to have instilled any confidence in farmers. “We are still afraid about what could happen to our crop,” said Ganesh Ghogre, former sarpanch of Takali Khureshi, Balapur taluka. “Cotton has been sown in our village for decades. But this time we can’t decide what to sow.”
 
Shastri claimed that the Akola taluka agriculture office had gone into an overdrive and conducted awareness meetings in 119 villages from May 25 to June 17, 2018. “Step-by-step guidance, right from purchase of seeds to the final stage of harvest, has been imparted to farmers,” he said. “We are also training krishi sahayyaks to conduct regular monitoring of the crop throughout the season.”
 
But, Prashant Gawande of Shetkari Jagar Manch, an Akola-based farmers’ organisation, described the current crisis in farming as a crisis of credibility. “Owing to its dismal record of implementation (of plans), farmers don’t trust the government at all.”
 
Some farmers have decided to shun cotton this year.
 
 
State agriculture department officials have estimated a 10% drop in cotton acreage, with farmers likely to switch to soybean.
 
Furthermore, precautions suggested by the government to save cotton crop were not practical, said farmers.
 
Scientists advise measures, farmers say these are unrealistic
PDKV, Akola, and CICR, Nagpur, have, time and again, published elaborate guidelines to monitor and control pink bollworm on cotton. PDKV, in its periodical, also laid out a seven-point preliminary action plan for farmers to deal with pink bollworm this season.
 
But, many of these had not reached farmers and at least three measures–use of pheromone traps, sowing of non-Bt seeds along the periphery and avoiding extension of crop–were found to be unviable.
 
For instance, Bhimrao Dhore, 52, from Goregaon Budruk, has never heard of pheromone traps that the university recommended on cotton farms 45 days after sowing. The traps snare male moth and contain the spread of the pest. Priced at Rs 55-60, these traps are supposed to be less harmful than insecticides.
 
“We have neither been told about these nor have we seen them at our krishi seva kendra (village-level stores that sell agricultural inputs),” said Bhimrao. TH Rathod, senior research scientist (cotton), PDKV, accepted that the traps were not widely available for sale.
 

Pre-monsoon cotton crop sown in the end of May on an irrigated farm in Bharatpur village of Balapur taluka, Akola district. Scientists had advised against pre-monsoon sowing this season to break the life cycle of pink bollworm pest. Sowing was recommended to be undertaken only after the sowing area had received 75 to 100 mm of rain.
 
The other recommendation to sow five border rows of non-Bt seeds, called ‘refuge’, to divert bollworms from the main Bt crop had not worked on Ganesh Mankar’s 6-acre farm in Goregaon Khurd village in 2017-18. Every 450-gram packet of cotton seeds includes an additional 120 gram of ‘refugia’ or non-Bt cotton seeds.
 
A CICR study conducted between 2014 and 2016, to examine the quality of non-Bt seeds in the market, revealed several violations. Of 30 seed packets bought from markets in north and central India, 12 of the non-Bt seed packets had Bt genes, and 21 of the 30 non-Bt seed packets had less than the stipulated 75% germination.
 
“There is an urgent need to develop proper testing methods in the country, especially to ensure compliance and monitoring of regulatory guidelines with reference to genetically modified crops,” the study stated.
 
The third key advice, according to Rathod–to plant another crop post-November and avoid re-fertilisation and collection of a second cotton harvest from the same field–was infeasible, said dryland farmers.
 
”We cannot take any second crop. Cotton is the only productive crop for us,” said Balkrishna Sable who owns 4 acres of unirrigated land in Dewarda village, Akot taluka.
 
Only 12.5% of the cultivable land in Vidarbha is irrigated.
 
These ground realities coupled with the grey market for unlicensed seeds has left farmers vulnerable.
 
Poor monitoring of the seed market
“Many farmers travel long distances for cheaper, unlicensed seeds for under Rs 400 because they cannot afford legal seeds,” said Ravi Patil Arbat, former journalist with the local Marathi newspaper, Deshonnati. A registered 450-gram cotton seed can cost up to Rs 740.
 
Three 450-gram packets are required to plant an acre of cotton.
 
Farmers complained that seeds were sold at higher prices than stipulated. “But, the amount mentioned on bills is the stated price,” said Pralhad Patil, another farmer from Dewarda village, Akot taluka.
 
In a recent sampling and testing of seeds conducted by the agriculture department of Akola taluka, as many as seven varieties of cotton seeds were found to be of spurious quality. “They were being passed off as Bt in the market,” said Shastri. “We have put up a notice requesting farmers to not buy these varieties.”
 
This supply of illegitimate seeds was also stated by a Mint report published on July 10, 2018. Citing an expert panel set up by the Prime Minister’s office, it said: “Nearly 15% of the area under cotton farming in India was planted with illegally produced and unapproved herbicide tolerant seeds.”
 
The seed trade, owing to its seasonal nature, is extremely corrupt, said Srikrishna Gawande, a local journalist from Nandura taluka, Buldhana district. “We see many fraudulent companies in the market that trade in lakhs in one season and disappear the next,” he said. “The government is either short staffed or its seed inspectors turn a blind eye (to the corruption). Everybody earns their share. The farmer is the only victim here.”
 
However, the current market of Bt seeds of private companies is the only option available for farmers this season.
 
The experiment that failed
In 2016, the state government-appointed Vasantrao Naik Sheti Swavlamban Mission undertook a sustainable farming experiment to revive indigenous cotton seeds. A group of farmers from the Kolam tribe in Aawalgaon village of Yavatmal district were given free indigenous cotton seeds on a trial basis.
 
“This would have reduced the burden of buying expensive inputs and also yielded equal output,” said Kishore Tiwari, chairperson of the mission, who had hoped to expand indigenous farming practices.
 
But, these crops caught pest too. “They could not survive in the prevailing environment of chemical farming as the neighbouring farms continued to sow Bt,” said Tiwari.
 
An alternative to the commercially successful Bt seeds seems difficult, conceded Tiwari. “Yield is a big issue for farmers. There continues to be a great demand for Bt seeds even if they cost more,” he said.
 
Shailesh Bhakre, 35, who owns 10 acres of farmland in Goregaon Budruk, said: “Only an upgrade in the Bt technology will combat bollworm and sustain our income.”
 
PDKV too has developed its own Bt varieties–four BG I and a BG II–in a bid to offer an alternative to the existing private Bt seed market. “Approval is granted by the union and state governments for our BG II variety–PDKV JKAL-116,” said Rathod.
 
These seeds, likely to be in the market by 2019 kharif and proposed to be priced within Rs 200 per packet, could become a reliable choice for farmers.
 
Crisis compounded by other agri policy failures
The haphazard disbursement of crop loans and the flawed implementation of the loan waiver policy have added to the ongoing cotton crisis.
 
“Only four out of the total 400-odd farmers who took loans in our society had them waived,” said Mankar, who is also a director of Seva Sahakari Society, an agricultural credit society in Goregaon Khurd village.
 
The delays meant that farmers remained defaulters and could not take fresh crop loans. Records with the Akola district deputy registrar, department of cooperation, showed how the reach of crop loan had dwindled over the years.
 

 First Published on India Spend
 

The post As A Genetic Revolution Collapses, Vidarbha’s Cotton Farmers Dread Coming Season appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
This was a Facebook post last month by Maharudra Mangnale, farmer, author and journalist from Shirur-Tajband village in Latur district in south-central Maharashtra. The irony was directed at the tightening of restrictions on cattle markets and what this would do to the farmer.
 
There is a ban on the sale of cattle for slaughter in Maharashtra, extended on March 4, 2015, to bulls, bullocks and calves. On May 23, 2017, the Centre notified new rules banning the sale and purchase of cattle from animal markets for slaughter under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
 
Why is this increasing squeeze on the cattle market for slaughter making Marathwada’s farmers anxious? In this two-part series, IndiaSpend travels through the rural hinterland looking for answers. It looks at  why small landholders and landless farmers who own a major share of the state’s livestock need the freedom to sell unproductive animals to make cattle-rearing viable.
 
The next part will take a close look at the work cycle of two farmers in Marathwada to understand the place cattle occupy in it.
 
Marathwada is a marker of India’s current agricultural distress: 77% of farmers have no more than five acres of land, the region has experienced three years of drought over the last decade, its rural per capita income is Rs 90,460, or Rs 12,547 less than the national average.
 
Cattle rearing and trade form an integral source of farm livelihood in this region. Cattle are essential for agricultural work but there are also 1,614 village-level dairy cooperatives in Marathwada, third highest among the state’s six divisions. Annual milk procurement from these societies was around 20 million litres in 2016.
 
However, there is one important fact about the economic life cycle of cattle whether they are used for milk or agricultural work: It only lasts for about 15 years of their 25 to 30-year life span.
 

Source: Food and Agriculture Organisation; Sheep and goat breeds of India & Guidelines for slaughtering, meat cutting and further processing, United Nations, India Council of Agricultural Research & Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Agritech Portal
 
Farmers, thus, need to be able to sell unproductive cattle. This is especially the case with poor farmers who need to raise money to buy productive cattle and sustain milk procurement or farming. In times of distress, droughts for example, cattle sale helps small farmers raise money for sustenance.
 
To tend to old and unproductive bovines and arrange fodder and water for them is impractical for small and marginal farmers of dry Marathwada. Small landholders and landless farmers account for major share in ownership of livestock, according to the 2015-16 report of the union department of animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries.
 
So the new restrictions are making cattle rearing increasingly unviable. Slaughter traders are having to shut down businesses and farmers are giving up on dairy farming in Marathwada, IndiaSpend investigations found.
 
The new rules mandate a tangle of official procedures that threaten to cripple the thriving livestock markets which are intrinsic to rural Maharashtra’s agrarian culture.

 
New rules complicate cattle sale process
 
Maharashtra government’s Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs) run 196 livestock sub-yards within the 300-odd markets that operate in the state. While some animal markets function within the premises on designated days where other agricultural produce is traded, others are located in more interior areas regulated by gram panchayat (village council) bodies.
 
The APMC grants licences to animal traders to purchase and transport animals–cow, buffalo, bull, bullock, calf, goat, sheep etc–that are brought to the market. At present, any person can bring an animal to the market for display and sale. A minimal market licence fee of Rs 10 is charged from the purchaser only if a transaction is made.
 
The only documentation required in a sale is an entry by an APMC or gram panchayat official in a register after the sale. A basic receipt stating the names and addresses of the buyer and seller, the sale price and the animal’s details is issued.
 
Under the latest rules, cattle sale will become a far more complicated process. It will involve the formation of two committees–one at the district level and another at the local body-level–to carry out a more stringent regulation of market activities.
 
Members of these committees, unlike the elected members of APMCs, will be appointed by the state government. They will hold discretionary powers to inspect every animal entering the market. They can stop the entry and sale of “unfit” animals as well as seize animals from their owners in cases of “cruel treatment”, according to sections 11, 12 and 13 of the recent Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017.
 
“We oppose every law that destroys this current free access to market, limited regulation and freedom of trade,” said Seema Narode, western Maharashtra president of the women’s front of the Shetkari Sanghatana, a farmers’ organisation.
 
The rules are not only arbitrary and detrimental to farmers, but are also removed from ground realities of current trade practices, Narode said.
 
“In western Maharashtra where milk production is a flourishing occupation for farmers, many own jersey (cross-bred) cows which produce greater quantities of milk. But, male calves of these cows cannot be used for agricultural purposes,” she added. “There is no option for us but to sell them.”
 
Leather industry and butchers comprise a huge number of buyers of male calves of cross-bred dairy cows.
 
The story of a cattle market that had to shut shop
 
APMC’s weekly animal market in Udgir town of Latur district recorded a slight sag in sales in the year 2016-17 and first quarter of 2017-18. Sales had steadily soared in the period between 2010-11 and 2015-16 owing to the successive droughts. Farmers in distress often sell cattle to tide over a crunch.
 
Source: Data collected from APMC, Udgir
NOTE: *Figures available up to December 2013; **Up to June 15, 2017
 
Cattle rearing in the region has declined because of two reasons, according to officials: An increase in the use of machines for farming and a fall in the number of traders who purchase animals after the 2015 ban.
 
“Around 10-12 cattle traders who operated out of the market here don’t work here any longer because of the growing hassles they face in transporting cattle,” said BM Patil, APMC secretary, Udgir market.
 
The situation appears to be equally worrying for farmers in Vidarbha.
 
An animal market that gathered at Sawal Mendha village in Bhainsdehi taluka of Baitul district in Madhya Pradesh stopped operating nine months ago. Sawal Mendha borders Amravati district in Maharashtra and served as a market for cattle-rearers within a 30-km radius in Akola, Amravati and Buldhana districts of the state.
 
Those who went to the Sawal Mendha market to trade their animals are now forced to travel 50-90 km to a livestock market in Paratwada village in Amravati district, said Satish Deshmukh, a farmer from Panaj village in Akot taluka of Akola district.
 
“Around four months ago, a few Muslim traders were also threatened and beaten up when they were transporting cattle. No FIR (first information report) was lodged,” said Deshmukh, who is also a member of Shetkari Sanghatana. “The situation is becoming increasingly tense and difficult.”
 
On May 26, 2017, two men were thrashed for possessing beef by seven gau rakshaks (cow vigilantes) in Malegaon taluka of Washim district.
 
The country witnessed 63 crimes of attacks by cow vigilantes, including 28 deaths, across the country in the past seven years, as IndiaSpend reported on June 28, 2017. And 97% of these attacks occurred after the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government came to power in May 2014.
 
“People fear that they will be booked under false cases. I have decided to not nurture cattle until this law is in place,” said Mangnale.
 
In times of distress, as we said, small farmers usually sell their cattle to deal with the crunch. “When farmers are themselves in debt and committing suicides, they don’t have the financial capacity to tend to old cattle and bury them after they die. It is expensive to hire a JCB and dig a pit,” said Mangnale.
 
Govt assistance doesn’t reach enough farmers
 
In 2016-17, Aurangabad district–one of the three districts in Marathwada with the highest bovine population–insured 15,891 cattle. The cattle population of the district stands at 676,180, according to the 2012 livestock census.
 
“Demand for insurance policy is huge. The target given to us was 5,000 cattle. We exceeded it,” said BD Chaudhari, assistant commissioner, animal husbandry department, Aurangabad division.
 
Insurance is given to the cattle owner if the cow, buffalo or bull dies within one to three years of registration for the policy. The amount is estimated by the veterinary doctor depending on the animal’s prevailing market rate and health at the time of registration.
 
Chaudhari admitted that availability of fodder remained a bigger challenge in the region. A state policy that allows distribution of fodder seeds to farmers had up to 2,000 beneficiaries in the year 2015-16 in Aurangabad district. But, this is clearly inadequate–of the 529,861 landholding farmers in the district, 83% have less than 2.5 acres of land and it is not enough to raise fodder.
 
“Because the seeds are provided on 100% subsidy , a limited number of beneficiaries are selected every year based on budget availability,” said a livestock development official from the Aurangabad zilla parishad (district council).
 
‘Cattle markets are a tradition that need to continue’
 
Livestock exhibitions and markets are a part of Maharashtra’s agrarian tradition. Hundreds of cattle of indigenous varieties are displayed and traded every month at these events.
 
A case in point is the 50-year-old bull market, one of the largest in Marathwada, in Hali-Handarguli village, 22 km from Udgir town in Latur district. It functions for eight months between the Dussehra festival (October) and the kharif sowing season (June) every year. The market is known for its Deoni and Lal Kandhari breeds of bulls which are known and prized for their strength and capacity to work in peak summer temperatures.
 
“Are these exhibits and markets also not a part of our tradition?” asked Shankar Anna Dhondge, former Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) legislator from Nanded, countering the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh’s (RSS) narrative of protecting “gauvansh” (cow dynasty) for its “sacredness”.
 
But, cattle commerce in the Hali-Handarguli market, which operates Saturday to Monday, has now fallen considerably. On May 29, 2017, just before the market closed for the sowing season, only three buffaloes were available for sale against at least 100 earlier, according to locals.
 
“The legal perspective (on cattle slaughter) itself is flawed. Farmers do not anyway trade productive cattle for slaughter,” said Mangnale.
 
Traders say that animal markets in Nalegaon, Deoni and Udgir in Latur district’s Udgir taluka bordering Karnataka might have to shut down completely if the Centre’s new notification is implemented.
 
Section 8 of the proposed law states that no animal market can be organised within 25 km of a state border.
 
“The law is made by those in cities, who know nothing about raising cattle,” added Dhondge. “What will those who cannot take care of their own elderly parents and leave them in old age homes tell us about taking care of our old cattle?”
 
Moreover, Section 14 of the new rules also prohibits traditional practices such as painting of horns and decking animals with ornaments for being “cruel and harmful”.
 
“The law is made with a sense of how animals are kept in a factory. What does the government know how much we care for our animals?” Mangnale added.
 
(Kulkarni is a Mumbai-based freelance journalist, who has worked with Haqdarshak–a social enterprise, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan–a non-party people’s political organisation and Hindustan Times–a newspaper.)
 
This is the first of a two-part series.

Courtesy: India Spend
 

The post Why Marathwada’s Farmers Dread The New Cattle Law appeared first on SabrangIndia.