----- Original Message -----

From: utkarsh sinha

To: farmersactivism@yahoogroups.com ; Bhaskar Goswami ; agri concern

Cc: amitabh thakur ; anil chawdhary ; Ashok sinha ; banku bihari ; bhartendu PRAKSH ; krishna bir chawdhary ; yogesh bandhu

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:59 PM

Subject: [AgriConcern] This Seeds Bill must go

This Seeds Bill must go
The National Seeds Bill was recently studied by a parliamentary standing committee after being introduced in the Rajya Sabha late last year. The bill has provoked controversy because it is seen as seeking to shift control of seeds from farmers to seed firms. Kavitha Kuruganti provides a critique. 

16 August 2005 - The National Seeds Bill 2004 has provoked great controversy. It was referred to the standing Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, after being introduced in the Rajya Sabha in December 2004. The Bill seeks to replace the Seeds Act of 1966. The current draft describes the bill as one “to provide for regulating the quality of seeds for sale, import and export and to facilitate production and supply of seeds of quality and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

In addition to wanting to put a check on the sale of spurious and poor quality seed and to provide compensation to affected farmers, the draft bill also appears to have an express objective of increasing private participation in the seed trade in the country and to liberalise imports of seed and other planting material into the country, ostensibly to meet WTO commitments. The bill then goes on to propose various mechanisms and modalities by which regulation of seed would happen – compulsory registration of all seed varieties; certification not just by State Seed Certification agencies but by accredited agencies outside the government too; inclusion of commercial crops and plantation crops too into the purview of the Bill; provisions for regulation of transgenic material; slight increase in penalties for contravening the law and so on.

The draft bill seeks to replace the Seeds Act of 1966 and was originally drafted in 2002, and saw some revisions circulated to state agriculture ministries/departments by the Centre in 2003 also. The latest version has been introduced in Rajya Sabha in December 2004, and proved controversial. It was then subsequently referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, which sought responses from all stakeholders. Next, a modified version is expected to get back to the Rajya Sabha.

The rest of this article looks at how this bill came about, why it has become so controversial and the changes it needs to become more purposeful and pro-farmer.

Shifting control from farmers to seed firms

Indian agriculture is mainly run by seed saved from farmers' own fields, very often by women in farming communities who use their traditional knowledge and skills in selecting and saving seed. Nearly 75% of the seed required for Indian farming is estimated to be created by farmers themselves in this manner. When it comes to seeds, Indian agriculture has seen and continues to witness a variety of roles that farmers perform. While some farmers and farming communities have been breeders of seed varieties, most farmers are seed producers in that they save seeds from their own crop to be re-used. Many farmers also engage in seed exchange and thereby meet their varied needs. Farmers are also consumers as they buy seeds from companies and traders.

By virtue of these varied roles, there are a variety of rights that accrue to farmers and that they have traditionally enjoyed – rights as breeders, rights as producers of seed (from their own farms), rights as seed exchangers and rights as seed buyers. While the first three are most often in the arena of what is called the informal seed sector, the last is in the formal seed sector.

The objective seems to be to make farmers seed consumers, i.e., make farmers depend on external sources for their seed.  •  Legislate, then contradict  •  Illegal seeds to be uprooted

How do these rights accrue? There are the apriori and customary rights that communities have, by virtue of certain things they were doing, much before any nationhood was created or laws enacted. Activists have been fighting for the apriori rights for indigenous communities and their seed resources, especially outside an IPR framework. A few such rights were recognised in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and laws flowing from it. Farmers' rights as breeders in particular accrue from the CBD and the Indian legislation based on that - the Biological Diversity Act. These are also enshrined in the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act (PPVFR), which was evolved using the sui generis clause of TRIPS, the WTO instrument. It is this legislation which also recognises the rights of farmers as seed users and seed buyers.

However, this is a scenario that is fast changing. Governments are urging farmers to increase seed replacement rates ‘for higher productivity’, with seed corporations using technological, institutional and legal means to increase their markets. The objective seems to be to make farmers seed consumers wherein they depend on external sources for their seed. Within the formal seed sector, the role of the public sector in seed development, production and supply is rapidly decreasing with the private sector taking over.

Why this Bill now?

Seeds in Indian agriculture are governed by nearly thirty legislations – the Seeds Act 1966; the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; the Biological Diversity Act, 2002; Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001; Patents Amendment Act, 2005; Environment Protection Act, 1986; Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Geographical Indication of Goods Act, 1999; The Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 1989 and so on.

While some of these legislations are meant to regulate the formal seed sector and ensure that adequate and good quality of seed is supplied to farmers, others are related to ownership rights over seed resources. These are rights which seek to recognise the parentage of certain varieties and based on that, bestow certain exclusive marketing rights to the ‘developers’ of the seed (breeders’ rights).

The Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, which the government has not yet brought into force, expressly talks about farmers’ rights in connection with seed even as it talks about breeders’ rights. A legislation like the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is supposed to uphold the rights of farmers as consumers of inputs like seed, fertilisers, pesticides etc.

The seed industry itself has grown rapidly and changed its profile substantially after the articulation of the National Seeds Policy of 2002 and prior to that, the New Policy on Seed Development in 1988. Legislations which have been enacted in recent times only work within an IPR framework to the advantage of seed companies, including the PVPFR Act. Farmers’ rights are more and more defined only in terms of residual rights, after rights to seed corporations are ensured.

Private capital, including that of foreign seed companies, began to flow in even as mushrooming of several small Indian seed companies happened since the late 1980s. As the seed production and supply chain lengthened in terms of distance as well as number of players in the chain, the need for regulating the seed trade became more urgent and important. In this context, the existing Seed Act 1966 as well as the Seeds Control Order 1983 were found to be inadequate in regulating seed trade and ensuring provision of high quality seed. There are many reasons for this.

The Seeds Act of 1966 is a legislation meant “to provide for regulating the quality of certain kind of seeds for sale” and for matters connected therewith [author’s emphasis]. The Act seeks to regulate quality of seed by first laying down minimum standards and then requiring all seed marketers to conform to such standards. The mark or label of the seed should indicate that the seed conforms to such minimum limits. No person can sell, offer for sale, keep for sale, barter or otherwise sell any seed of any notified variety unless the seed is identifiable to its kind or variety, that the seed conforms to the minimum standards and that the container of the seed bears in the prescribed manner the mark or label indicating the standards of the contents inside.

The implement this law, there is an elaborate institutional set up (apart from the Central Seeds Committee and the Seed Certification Agencies) in the form of Central and State Seed Testing Laboratories, Seed Analysts and Seed Inspectors through which regulation towards good quality seed is sought to be achieved. A person upon conviction for contravention of the provisions of the Act could be punished for the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and for subsequent offences with imprisonment for a term which may be upto six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

While the Seeds Act 1966 might have met the regulation requirements in the situation that existed during that period, in the current situation, this legislation and its provisions are grossly inadequate. Today, the Indian seed industry has an annual turnover of about forty billion rupees. As the seed sector grew, the scope for more and more unscrupulous elements to enter the picture increased.

In AP, just in the span of three months last year (2004), spurious seeds worth nearly seven crores of rupees were seized during raids all over the state. Further, the existing Seeds Act deals only with notified varieties and there are many varieties which are not notified but which get traded. Certification is also voluntary and not mandatory. There are no adequate deterrents in the Law for offenders – the punitive clauses are very weak compared to the tremendous potential that exists to make quick money at the expense of farmers. There are also no compensatory mechanisms provided for farmers in case of failure of seed.

Given these shortcomings, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh wanted to enact their own legislations to regulate the seed industry at the state level. However, the Central Government did not give a clearance for this, citing that a new seeds legislation was on the anvil at the central level. This is the genesis of the current national bill.

General critique

Within the formal seed sector, the role of the public sector in seed development, production and supply is rapidly decreasing with the private sector taking over.

The Ministry of Agriculture articulates the rationale for the new Seeds Bill on its website. There are problems with this rationale. For instance, increasing private participation - it is not clear why increasing private sector participation should be an objective in itself especially to the extent of criminalising farmers who practise traditional systems of exchange and sale. Increasing private participation in seed production, distribution as well as certification and seed testing is bound to bring in conflict of interest where the judged becomes the judge.

Similarly, coming to the stated intention of increasing imports of seed, giving in to WTO commitments is not the primary mandate of the government, but to protect farmers' interests. Imports of seeds should also be understood as bringing in undesirable pests, weeds, diseases as well as seeds which could cause problems for Indian farming - we do not have sufficient technical, institutional and physical infrastructure to check this. The bill also seeks to boost exports of seeds. This could legitimise and facilitate bio-piracy since issues related to ownership/parentage of seed resources are yet to be resolved.

Incompatibility with other legislations and impact on farmers' rights

The Seeds Bill has to resolve both contradictions in concepts and objectives as well as operationalisation conflicts with other laws. First, it is not clear why the government has not brought into force the more progressive PVPFR Act and why it is willfully drafting a legislation which is clearly in contradiction with many clauses of the PVPFR. The PVPFR was also brought out by the Ministry of Agriculture!

The "registration" of plant varieties under the Seeds Bill is likely to create a parallel system to the PVPFR registrations and create much confusion, because the PVPFR Act also allows for rights through "registration".

Second, the Seeds Bill allows for “Registration” of seed varieties without first resolving issues related to parentage/origin of seed while granting rights of commercialisation. The Bill could lead to a situation where plant varieties could be registered by anyone without the obligation of disclosure of origin or without prior informed consent. Ownership/parentage in the context of IPRs could then be claimed by the legitimisation provided by the Seeds Bill. This would lead to bio-piracy and would constitute a clear infringement of farmers’ rights as breeders since all varieties that exist now have their origin in farmers’ varieties. Once de facto breeder rights are appropriated, private interests could obtain exclusive marketing rights. In fact, exclusive marketing rights could be extended endlessly, given the provisions in the Bill!

And unlike in the PVPFR Act, this Bill also has no provision for regulating seed supply or seed pricing. These are two important requirements if the formal seed sector has to be regulated in a manner that farmers’ interests are upheld.

Furthermore, the Seeds Bill is also incompatible with the Environment Protection Act, the Biological Diversity Act and so on. For example, it is the EPA which lays down the procedure for approvals and permissions related to genetically modified organisms. But the current bill seeks to circumvent those rules by talking about provisional registration for GM varieties.

We already noted how the Seeds Bill could impact farmers’ rights as breeders. The Seeds Bill asks farmers to compulsorily register themselves as “Seed Dealers” if they are engaged in saving and exchanging seeds. Secondly, the Bill says that farmers have to conform to the minimum standards laid down through this Bill. Both are clear infringements on the traditional rights of farmers who have always engaged in seed production and exchange with accountability systems that work out at the local level within the social structures of the community.

In the first instance, the traditional seed saving and exchange system is not based on commercial interests and is usually a non-monetised system. Therefore, entry of unscrupulous, unknown "fly by night" operators is minimal. Farmers who seek seed select their choice of seed from other farmers after first seeing it perform in their fields. Certain farmers and even landless women are known for their seed selection and seed keeping skills and the others in the community trust their resource and knowledge. In the author's experience, it is rare that such seeds fail due to deficient quality. Farmers do not knowingly supply deficient seed to other farmers. However, interviews with farmers engaged in seed exchange show that when such an instance of failure does happen, farmers who have borrowed the seeds pretty often assume that it is their management failure rather than the seed failure, especially if they see the same seed performing in other fields. Forcing the seed giver to pay compensation is somewhat rare given that it is perceived that the seed giver is actually doing a favour by lending her/his seed in the first instance. Still, in this traditional system, if a crop fails, the borrower could return any other variety to the seed giver.

Coming to farmers as consumers of seed supplied by the formal seed sector, the Bill has no satisfactory clauses with regard to the institutional set up that will regulate and ensure the quality of seed produced and supplied nor satisfactory punitive clauses that will act as deterrents on unscrupulous seed traders. It also does not uphold the rights of farmers when it comes to compensation in case of seed failure. The Bill proclaims that farmers can claim compensation through Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. If that was the case, there is no need to draft this legislation again!

As is well known, it is not easy for the farmers of this country who are mostly illiterate to access and successfully obtain redressal through these Consumer Forums. What is needed is a simplified and farmer-friendly redressal mechanism to be provided for in this Bill.

As mentioned earlier, the Seeds Bill is also silent when it comes to seed pricing and seed supply regulations. With the Patents Act coming into force and monopolies being legitimised in the form of IPRs, seed prices are bound to spiral upwards increasing the overall cost of cultivation for farmers. This is already seen in the case of the first transgenic crop in India, Bt Cotton. Ordinary cotton hybrid seed costs around Rs.450/- per acre while Bt Cotton costed Rs.1600/- in its three years of commercial cultivation so far. From this year onwards, the cost of Bt Cotton has been increased further to Rs. 1800/- per acre!

On transgenic varieties

In the case of transgenic varieties, the Seeds Bill has a confusing and unclear proposal called "Special Provision for Regulation of Transgenic Varieties" - it proposes a provisional registration for two years, subject to clearance under the Environment Protection Act. It is unclear why this provisional registration is being proposed and what the operationalisation implications are. While some have interpreted it as a violation of the EPA, others feel that it is probably a cautious approach to GMOs where only provisional registrations are provided.

If the former is the case, where transgenics are sought to be introduced through the backdoor, then there is much cause for concern. Genetic engineering is an irreversible and uncontrollable technology. Once released into the environment even for one season in a small scale, the potential for environmental damage and human health impacts could be tremendous. In a country where even existing liability mechanisms are not being enforced, suggesting such a provisional registration is suicidal. Transgenic contamination of seed stocks would become inevitable and irreversible in this country. The threat to our original seed stock from where other varieties could be evolved is immense from GE and should be recognised for what it is.

No vision for decentralised regulation

The Seeds Bill relies on the same old institutional mechanisms that are found deficient and ineffective in implementing the current Seeds Act and Seeds Control Order. Institutional mechanisms proposed should incorporated decentralised planning. This is best done in the public sector given the elaborate R & D set up and the agriculture departments that are in place. Instead of doing away with the extension system and trimming the departments more and more, there should be adequate investments on State Seed Development Corporations, on Seed Certification Agencies, on Seed Testing Laboratories and most importantly on programmes like Seed Villages which could incorporate training on breeding skills to farmers where required.

The proposed institutional mechanisms allow for conflict of interest elements to creep in during seed trials, testing, certification, etc. Under the new Bill, for instance, accredited individuals and institutions will be able to provide certification. Self-certification is also allowed. The Bill allows any seed company to establish its own certification institutions tomorrow and certify its own seeds! It does not address the deficiency of voluntary certification that exists under the current Seeds Act.

The Bill also says that any seed testing laboratory in the government or non-government sector can act as a State Seed Testing Laboratory where analysis of seed of any kind or variety shall be carried out. This once again is a dangerous provision with private seed testing laboratories fraught with conflict of interest elements. The Bill has to come up with innovative mechanisms to involve Panchayats and farmers in assessing the performance of seeds and so on rather than rely on a heavily bureaucratic set up.

Any proposed institutional set up should have clearly laid down, pro-active mechanisms for information-sharing and transparent decision-making so that corruption and arbitrariness can be tackled. Such mechanisms are best set up at a decentralised level rather than in a highly centralised manner.

Just another law based on archaic, ineffective and corrupt institutions cannot obviously tackle the issue of quality of seed and its regulation in isolation. The number of cases of failure of seed and losses incurred by farmers is a clear indicator of the ineffective functioning of the present system. One of the primary reasons that the formal seed sector has provided bad quality seeds to farmers is the lack of proper seed production and supply planning in the early stages and lack of subsequent implementation of such plans by the public sector in the country. There are many instances of commercial produce supplied in the garb of seed at the expense of farmers.

Punitive and compensation clauses

The penalty clauses provided for offences are very mild and not deterrent enough. The bill proposes that the offender who sells sub-standard seed, upon conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees. Offenders who sell spurious, misbranded or non-registered seeds are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both, according to the bill. Given that the spurious seed trade is worth crores of rupees, the small penalties being proposed are not likely to deter offenders.

There should be a formula specified in the law itself for calculating the penalty applicable. For instance, the penalty should be based on the quantity of seed supplied or stocked with malicious/negligent intent and therefore, X-times the real loss or potential loss incurred by farmers and not a fixed amount irrespective of the magnitude of the offence. Each time a seed trader/company commits an offence under this law, there should be pro-active publicised data in front of farmers about the erring companies, warning them not to deal with such companies.

The bill is completely inadequate when it comes to compensation to farmers in the case of seed failure. This Bill should take the opportunity to provide a mechanism for providing compensation to farmers in case of seed failure. Such compensation should be linked to a Seed Insurance system the premium for which is paid by the seed trader. Compensation should also be calculated based on a formula that should be specified in the Legislation itself which should include the monetised value of the expected performance as well as coverage of costs of cultivation incurred and not just the seed cost. Panchayats should have a role in certifying failures or losses since agricultural officials are not always available on time to verify the field level situation. Further, maximum time period for payment of compensation failing which more punitive clauses would apply should be specified in the legislation itself.

Punitive and compensatory clauses should apply to misbranding, selling at prices higher than specified prices/MRP, failure of germination, lack of genetic purity etc. Misbranding should be defined to include failure to keep up promises made during marketing/propaganda by the company and should include failure to reveal or keep up promises on expectable performance under different conditions as per the multi-locational agronomic trials as part of the packaging of seed.

Conclusion

The proposed Bill should not be looked at in isolation, but should be looked at in conjunction with other legislations and policies that India has, related to Seeds and Agriculture, like the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001; Biological Diversity Act 2002; Environment Protection Act 1986 with its 1989 Rules pertaining to Genetically Modified Organisms; Patents Amendment Act 2005 and so on. It should also be seen in the context of policies like National Biotechnology Development Strategy and so on to understand the full implications of what lies ahead for Indian farmers in terms of their seed resources. Any new policy and legislation should first and foremost try and uphold the rights of farmers over Seed in terms of its ownership as well as its use and management. Such policies and legislation should also uphold the central and special role that women have always had when it comes to seeds.

Towards this objective, the Seeds Bill should incorporate the following:

Multi-locational trials should be conducted over at least three seasons for most kinds/varieties making sure that all the various agro-ecological zones are covered under the trials, wherever commercialisation is proposed. The trials should include performance in intensive, high-input cultivation conditions as well as sustainable agriculture conditions to assess variable performance. Likewise, under irrigated and unirrigated conditions and for different soils. Since some parts of the Seeds Bill refer to “safety to human beings and animals”, the trials should include these parameters too. The results should be provided as part of the leaflet/label under various conditions so that the farmer can make an informed choice about the suitability of the variety for her/his own conditions. All the propaganda material used by the company/seed trader should mention the variable results clearly.

1. Regulation should include seed pricing, seed supply and decentralised seed planning/production in addition to regulation of quality.
2. A mechanism of licensing seed producers and sellers, rather than provide for registration.
3. Multi-locational agronomic trials undertaken in a scientific manner in all those locations where the seed is sought to be commercialised. The definition of “Agronomic Performance” should be included in the Act itself to cover many parameters like yield, growth, pest/disease/drought/other resistance, quality etc.
4. Each such licensing should be reviewed after 3-5 years and renewal should be allowed based on actual performance. The ICAR establishment should be used to conduct/supervise the initial trials as well as the review of performance.
5. Public access to information related to the grant of licenses for varieties as well as provisions for opposition to licenses granted to certain varieties if there is reason to believe that the variety is not what is claimed; information on revoking of licenses to be public too.
6. Strong punitive clauses which act as deterrents, based on standard formulae to calculate penalties.
7. Appropriate compensation clauses for speedy redressal to farmers who have incurred losses due to seed failure – this should be linked to an insurance system and should be based on calculations that consider loss in yields as well as cost of cultivation.
8. A role for panchayats in determining seed failure under various conditions – misbranding, spurious seed, sub-standard seed, seed sold above MRP etc.
9. Most importantly, the Seeds Bill should exclude traditional practices of farmers of seed production, sale and exchange from its purview.

Ultimately, any legislation related to seeds must uphold and support the following:

1. Farmers’ rights of breeding, selecting, saving, using, exchanging/bartering, distributing and selling seeds. These should be seen as inalienable primary rights and not be given as residual rights. Equally importantly, such rights should not be denied or violated by any method. In other words, ownership and control should be in the hands of farmers over their seed resources.
2. Increase in agro-biodiversity in particular and biodiversity in general; it should not seek to promote or end up promoting monocropping nor contribute to erosion of diversity.
3. Farmer-level self sufficiency in the form of community seed banks and seed networks.
4. The right of access to good quality, affordable, desired seeds primarily from the public sector if not the informal sector.
5. Protection of farmers’ rights in case of violation of trust in terms of quality, quantity and price of seeds supplied to them.
6. Accountability and liability clauses should be fixed both in terms of civil and criminal damages (given that farmer suicides are also linked to spurious seeds) against the seed traders. ⊕

Kavitha Kuruganti
16 Aug 2005

---

Does your mail provider give you access to messages sent to other POP email accounts, like your work account? Get Yahoo! Mail

© Copyright 2003 by The New Nation

Powered by eBiz Web Services

The problem with soyabean is not lack of better
management and marketing, but something much deeper
and intrinsic.

Sometimes around the late seventies, soyabean was
introduced in the Garhwal region. In the Tehri
district, this introduction was greatly promoted by
the regional unit of the GB Pant University of
Agriculture, located at Ranichauri near Chamba. As is
every such promotion, free seeds were given initially,
and there was great emphasis laid on soyabean’s (a)
cash profitability and (b) protein richness. The
people of the region were not exactly lacking in
protein (their traditional crops provided this in good
measure), but then the seventies was also the time of
the spread of the Green Revolution psyche in the
mountain regions.

The local people were already growing a close, local
variant of the soyabean – the bhatt, besides kidney
beans (rajmah) and other pulses and grams, and these
were what the soyabean sought to replace.

Over the next decade or so, this is what happened: (a)
The area for the local bhatt and other pulses, grams
reduced significantly. Particularly affected was the
rajma. (b) Soyabean never really became an intrinsic
part of the local diet, particularly since its taste
was different, and it took much longer to cook. So it
exacerbated the fuel problem without adding to the
protein scenario. In any case, there is an inherent
ambiguity in promoting a crop for both its cash value
and also for self consumption! (c) The cattle,
particularly the bullocks used in draught, are fed
pulse-gram mash. The cattle too rejected the soyabean
mash, and showed a distinct preference for the earlier
mix.(e) The soya oil  could not be extracted locally.
The nearest mill was in Bareilly. This meant that the
grower had to perforce sell the yield through a chain
of middlemen. (f) The soyabean’s selling rate for the
farmer, in the late eighties and ninetees, was
generally Rs 9-12 per kg. Only on some rare occasion
did it cross the upper limit. On the other hand,
ironically, rajmah, which the soyabean cultivation
most replaced, was generally sold by the farmer for
around Rs 20 per kg, and certainly never below Rs 16
per kg. Obviously then, soyabean was cash for the
millers and the middlemen – and not for the farmers!

Farmers, by themselves, are scientists and great
experimenters. So, in Garhwal at least, they
experimented with soyabean and have since rejected it
or are growing it in a limited way in mixed cropping.

A couple of years ago, as part of a People’s
Commission on Small and Marginal Farmers, we heard a
similar soyabean lament in the Jhansi region.


Biju Negi

--- raghu <tprmenon@...> wrote:

> Dear friends,
> I completely agree with Bhartenduji. It is not only
> soil and along with it
> the biodiversity below ground that gets
> disentegrated, but also has replaced
> a whole lot of millets and other crops. And this is
> true for the southern
> region also.
>
> Raghu.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dr. Bharatendu Prakash"
> <vsk_73@...>
> To: <AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Case study, Pradan:
> Cashing in on Soybean in
> Central India
>
>
> > Dear Friends
> >
> > Soybean was introduced as a CASH-PROVIDING crop in
> central India. It has
> > replaced  many useful NUTRITION PROVIDING crops
> which were mixed -sown
> > during KHARIF in this area.
> >
> > Earlier there was also a practice of holding water
> in the field for months
> > during rainy season . Soybean cultivation affected
> all such water bodies
> and
> > the result is that the water table in many areas
> is fast going down.
> Farmers
> > find it  difficult as far as sustainability  in
> farming  is concerned.
> >
> > It is essential  to study all the aspects.
> >
> > In agriculture  INPUT-OUTPUT  theory does not hold
> good because it avoids
> > measuring the losses incurred by the soils i.e.the
> third variable  for a
> > longer period. and envirobnment as a whole.
> Personal gains for a short
> time
> > and turning environment unstable   is not the
> right way to go ahead .
> >
> > I am sure PRADAN as an experienced organization
> must be aware of it.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Bharatendu Prakash
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Suresh Motwani" <motwanisuresh07@...>
> > To: <AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:17 PM
> > Subject: [AgriConcern] Case study, Pradan: Cashing
> in on Soybean in
> Central
> > India
> >
> >
> > > Cashing in on Soybean in Central India
> > >
> > > Soybean is a major cash crop in central India.
> While wheat ensures a
> > > measure of food sufficiency in most parts of
> Madhya Pradesh and some
> > > parts of Maharashtra and Rajasthan, it is
> soybean that takes care of
> > > the cash requirement of rural households
> throughout the year.
> > >
> > > The marketing of soybean is not a problem since
> there is a large
> > > number of oil processing factories in these
> areas. However, marginal
> > > farmers lag far behind bigger farmers in many
> aspects of production.
> > > Average productivity is less than 7 quintals per
> hectares (potential
> > > at least 25 quintals/ha). Ploughing is neither
> deep enough nor timely
> > > nor is the land pulverised.
> > >
> > > The only fertiliser used is Di-ammonium
> Phosphate. Farmers sow seed
> > > mixed with fertiliser, unknowingly damaging the
> seed. Row-to-row
> > > distance is not maintained. The seed is recycled
> year after year for
> > > 5-6 years and is neither tested nor graded. The
> germination rate
> > > varies between 26-70% and farmers often sow upto
> 25% extra seed
> > > against the recommended seed rate of 70 /ha.
> > >
> > > The Vidisha district of Madhya Pradesh has the
> highest per capita
> > > land holding across the state, and almost all
> farmers cultivate
> > > soybean. PRADAN initiated a pilot here in the
> Kharif season of 2002
> > > to develop a workable model for soybean
> cultivation. The highest
> > > yield was 25 quintals/ha, and average yield was
> 16-18 quintals/ha.
> > >
> > > The new package of practices included providing
> seed along with seed
> > > treatment kits; ploughing and sowing (deep
> plough, mixing fertiliser
> > > & manure, sowing distance 18"); application of
> weedicides and
> > > pesticides and services like accounts keeping
> and crop insurance.
> > > PRADAN thus scaled up this livelihood programme
> to cover 435 families
> > > in Kharif 2003 with
> > >
> > > Village campaigns to raise awareness about
> improved incomes from
> > > soybean
> > > Farmer organisations to introduce the improved
> package on 0.25
> > > hectares of land
> > > Identification and training of community based
> service providers.
> > > Participants identify a good farmer from the
> village who would assist
> > > them and be trained by PRADAN.
> > > Technical expertise and supervision: Crop
> technologists to ensure
> > > timely application of package of practices,
> performance of service
> > > providers and address problems (pest attacks).
> > > Training programmes for staff and the farmers,
> in the standard
> > > package of package.
> > > Arranging finance from the DPIP (District
> Poverty Initiatives
> > > Project).
> > > Arranging inputs in bulk at lower rates (seeds,
> fertilisers,
> > > insecticides and implements).
> > > Network of resource institutions like Soybean
> Oilseed Processors
> > > Association (SOPA), National Resource Centre on
> Soybean (NRCS), Beej
> > > Nigam and Mahindra Subluv.
> > > Regular follow up by PRADAN professionals
> through an MIS (management
> > > information system) based on crop technologists
> and service providers
> > > visiting farms.
> > > Yields reported from 339 farmers show that 86%
> registered increases
> > > upto 1.5 to 2.5 times compared to last year.
> Only 14% remained at
> > > earlier production levels. Highest yield
> achieved was 31 quintals/ha.
> > > Enthused, many farmers are coming forward and
> the team plans to take
> > > the programme to 1,000 farmers with 0.5 ha each
> in Kharif 2004.
> > >
> > > There is a concern about long-term
> sustainability of high yielding
> > > agriculture. PRADAN is exploring available
> alternatives that it would
> > > pilot to enhance the package of practices. These
> are, however, longer-
> > > term measures and will take time to develop.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.indianngos.com/pradan/rt_soyabeancentralindia.htm
> > >
> > > -------------------------
> > > Suersh Motwani
> > > M.Sc(Agronomy), PGDAM
> > > RC-Central
> > > Indian Soceity of Agribusiness Professional.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental
> Action Group.
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===





______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

Dear friends,
I completely agree with Bhartenduji. It is not only soil and along with it
the biodiversity below ground that gets disentegrated, but also has replaced
a whole lot of millets and other crops. And this is true for the southern
region also.

Raghu.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Bharatendu Prakash" <vsk_73@...>
To: <AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Case study, Pradan: Cashing in on Soybean in
Central India


> Dear Friends
>
> Soybean was introduced as a CASH-PROVIDING crop in central India. It has
> replaced  many useful NUTRITION PROVIDING crops which were mixed -sown
> during KHARIF in this area.
>
> Earlier there was also a practice of holding water in the field for months
> during rainy season . Soybean cultivation affected all such water bodies
and
> the result is that the water table in many areas is fast going down.
Farmers
> find it  difficult as far as sustainability  in farming  is concerned.
>
> It is essential  to study all the aspects.
>
> In agriculture  INPUT-OUTPUT  theory does not hold good because it avoids
> measuring the losses incurred by the soils i.e.the third variable  for a
> longer period. and envirobnment as a whole. Personal gains for a short
time
> and turning environment unstable   is not the right way to go ahead .
>
> I am sure PRADAN as an experienced organization must be aware of it.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Bharatendu Prakash
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Suresh Motwani" <motwanisuresh07@...>
> To: <AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:17 PM
> Subject: [AgriConcern] Case study, Pradan: Cashing in on Soybean in
Central
> India
>
>
> > Cashing in on Soybean in Central India
> >
> > Soybean is a major cash crop in central India. While wheat ensures a
> > measure of food sufficiency in most parts of Madhya Pradesh and some
> > parts of Maharashtra and Rajasthan, it is soybean that takes care of
> > the cash requirement of rural households throughout the year.
> >
> > The marketing of soybean is not a problem since there is a large
> > number of oil processing factories in these areas. However, marginal
> > farmers lag far behind bigger farmers in many aspects of production.
> > Average productivity is less than 7 quintals per hectares (potential
> > at least 25 quintals/ha). Ploughing is neither deep enough nor timely
> > nor is the land pulverised.
> >
> > The only fertiliser used is Di-ammonium Phosphate. Farmers sow seed
> > mixed with fertiliser, unknowingly damaging the seed. Row-to-row
> > distance is not maintained. The seed is recycled year after year for
> > 5-6 years and is neither tested nor graded. The germination rate
> > varies between 26-70% and farmers often sow upto 25% extra seed
> > against the recommended seed rate of 70 /ha.
> >
> > The Vidisha district of Madhya Pradesh has the highest per capita
> > land holding across the state, and almost all farmers cultivate
> > soybean. PRADAN initiated a pilot here in the Kharif season of 2002
> > to develop a workable model for soybean cultivation. The highest
> > yield was 25 quintals/ha, and average yield was 16-18 quintals/ha.
> >
> > The new package of practices included providing seed along with seed
> > treatment kits; ploughing and sowing (deep plough, mixing fertiliser
> > & manure, sowing distance 18"); application of weedicides and
> > pesticides and services like accounts keeping and crop insurance.
> > PRADAN thus scaled up this livelihood programme to cover 435 families
> > in Kharif 2003 with
> >
> > Village campaigns to raise awareness about improved incomes from
> > soybean
> > Farmer organisations to introduce the improved package on 0.25
> > hectares of land
> > Identification and training of community based service providers.
> > Participants identify a good farmer from the village who would assist
> > them and be trained by PRADAN.
> > Technical expertise and supervision: Crop technologists to ensure
> > timely application of package of practices, performance of service
> > providers and address problems (pest attacks).
> > Training programmes for staff and the farmers, in the standard
> > package of package.
> > Arranging finance from the DPIP (District Poverty Initiatives
> > Project).
> > Arranging inputs in bulk at lower rates (seeds, fertilisers,
> > insecticides and implements).
> > Network of resource institutions like Soybean Oilseed Processors
> > Association (SOPA), National Resource Centre on Soybean (NRCS), Beej
> > Nigam and Mahindra Subluv.
> > Regular follow up by PRADAN professionals through an MIS (management
> > information system) based on crop technologists and service providers
> > visiting farms.
> > Yields reported from 339 farmers show that 86% registered increases
> > upto 1.5 to 2.5 times compared to last year. Only 14% remained at
> > earlier production levels. Highest yield achieved was 31 quintals/ha.
> > Enthused, many farmers are coming forward and the team plans to take
> > the programme to 1,000 farmers with 0.5 ha each in Kharif 2004.
> >
> > There is a concern about long-term sustainability of high yielding
> > agriculture. PRADAN is exploring available alternatives that it would
> > pilot to enhance the package of practices. These are, however, longer-
> > term measures and will take time to develop.
> >
> > http://www.indianngos.com/pradan/rt_soyabeancentralindia.htm
> >
> > -------------------------
> > Suersh Motwani
> > M.Sc(Agronomy), PGDAM
> > RC-Central
> > Indian Soceity of Agribusiness Professional.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

from http://www.tnau.ac.in/scms/SCMS/think/water.htm


Failure stories of rivers already linked



The Aral sea of Russia: It is the fourth largest fresh water lake in the
world with an extent of 66,000 sq.km. Though it is a lake due to this vast
extent it was called only as sea. The water storage capacity is equal to the
annual river flow of the Ganges and Brahmaputra put together. Fishing and
tourism flourished here and the annual fish production accounted to 40,000
tons. 40 years back Russia decided to divert this water to the deserts of
Turkmeniya through a canal constructed over a distance of 1400 km. Nearly 30
lakh hectares of lands were brought under irrigation and only due to this
Russia became number one in cotton production.



But now? The storage capacity has reduced to one-third and the area extent
has reduced to 38,000 sq.km. Slowly the water turned saline affecting
fishing industry. The lands irrigated with this water have also turned
saline and become unfit for cultivation. The annual loss caused due to this
accounts to Rs.1000 crores.



  Ecologists opine that it has turned out to be a great environmental
disaster and in another 7 years Aral sea would become a desert and disappear
from the geographical map of the world.



The Colorado river in USA: This river was causing uncontrolled floods and
devastations each year. US government constructed 19 major dams across this
river and diverted this water for irrigation. But now the river does not
even reach the sea and salinisation of the delta region has occurred.



The Yellow river of China: The river which was a perennial water source was
considered as China?s Sorrow due to the flood devastations it caused. But
due to construction of many dams across this river in 1997 the river
remained dry for 226 days. The delta farmers suffered a loss of Rs.8500
crores in 1997 alone.





Raghu.





----- Original Message -----
From: "Biju Negi" <bnegi@...>
To: <AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Fw: Ken-Betwa river link project


> Perhaps Susy or if anyone else knows, can throw some
> more light on the restoration projects - particularly
> on the reasons why these are being done now? Have the
> earlier projects served their purpose or they haven't,
> etc.?
> Biju Negi
>
> --- raghu <tprmenon@...> wrote:
>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Susy Varughese" <susy@...>
> > > To: "tpraghunath" <tprmenon@...>
> > > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 2:45 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [science-movement] Ken-Betwa river
> > link project
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > One issue that also could be brought to the
> > attention of the Govt or
> > > > pro-river linking lobby is about the number of
> > river restoration
> > projects
> > > > taking place around the world. The US itself has
> > about 34,000 such
> > > > projects running currently to restore the
> > original course of rivers
> > > > diverted for such projects in the past. one mega
> > project going on in the
> > > > europe is the Skern river project and another
> > mega project going on in
> > the
> > > > US is the everglades restoration (there are
> > enough material on the web
> > on
> > > > these).
> > > >
> > > > Susy Varughese
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, tpraghunath wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > > To: cerd_psf
> > > > > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:19 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest
> > link in river project
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Raghu  and friends !
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course there has been continuous effort of
> > studying  not only the
> > > > > project but also the area, location of dam,
> > the 240 km long canal
> > > > > route and the impact of this link over lives
> > of the people.  On our
> > > > > level  so many meetings of people likely to be
> > affected  have been
> > > > > organised. Water Parliament was organised with
> > help from Dr. Vandana
> > > > > Shiva ; Public meetings at Banda with
> > material, literature and
> > > > > support from Sh. Himanshu Thakkar. Local
> > people have been mobilized
> > > > > who have taken oath not to a;llow this
> > devastating plan. All the
> > > > > districts involved  like Panna, Chhatarpr,
> > Tikamgarh, in M.P. and
> > > > > Hamirpur,Mahoba,  Jhansi, and Banda  in U.P.
> > will be affected. The
> > > > > forests, the Panna Tiger Reserve, the natural
> > drainage, the irrigation
> > > > > potential and the flood situation all will be
> > affected. The proposed
> > > > > benefit to people has been wrongly calculated.
> >  Profits and commission
> > > > > will only go to contractors, engineers,
> > politicians, and
> > > > > administrators for whose interest
> > mega-projects are being planned.
> > > > > Multinationals will have easy entry in water
> > business  through such
> > > > > projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ken and Betwa  belonging to  same river basin
> > flood or dry up  at the
> > > > > same time. There is hardly any surplus in Ken
> > as proposed by the
> > > > > project where  the figures of water
> > availability have been  concocted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Studies have been published by Research
> > Foundation  and SANDRP ,
> > Delhi.
> > > > >
> > > > > Recently MOU has been signed  for bringing out
> > possibly a DPR
> > > > > overlooking  all resistances, people's voice,
> > and observations of
> > > > > environmentalists like  Ramaswamy Aiyer,  S.N.
> > Ghosh, Medha Patkar,
> > > > > Dr. Vandana Shiva, Nanaji Deshmukh, Rajendra
> > Singh, Anupam Mishra and
> > > > > Himanshu Thakkar etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > The UPA had earlier rejected the plan but now
> > they have agreed to
> > > > > support it which is shocking.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope you will raise this issue at
> > appropriate platform so that
> > > > > unwanted miseries of many tribals, villagers,
> > forest dwellers are
> > > > > avoided and Bundelkhand region is not
> > geographically and resource-wise
> > > > > destroyed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let rivers flow in their own coarse and not
> > get broken, diverted and
> > > > > hijacked.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yours Sincerely
> > > > >
> > > > > Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > > for:
> > > > > SAVE  KEN-BETWA FORUM, BANDA 210128
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: cerd_psf
> > > > > To: AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Cc: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:21 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest
> > link in river project
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> From Bhartendu's mail  it is evident that
> > this has been studied quite
> > > > > well. Yet, wasn't there any public hearings or
> > consultations? which is
> > > > > the project implementing agency and have they
> > conducted any detailed
> > > > > EIA on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > raghu./pondicherry science forum
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > > To: AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Cc: cwaterp ; vandana
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:20 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest
> > link in river project
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Utkarsh ji
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right  on Ken-Betwa Link.
> > > > >
> > > > > During 2002-4 I had toured entire Bundelkhand,
> > organised  many
> > > > > meetings, water  Parliament was organised at
> > Orchha with NAVDANYA and
> > > > > later several publications by us and with the
> > help of SANDRP. The link
> > > > > was outright rejected on scientific,
> > economic,social and cultural
> > front.
> > > > >
> > > > > Smt. Sonia Gandhi  had promised not to  go
> > along with this link .So
> > > > > many important environmentalists including Sh.
> > Ramaswami Aiyar, Sh
> > > > > Shailendra N. Ghosh,  Sh Nanaji Deshmukh, Ms.
> > MedhaPatkar, Sh.
> > > > > Himanshu Thakkar, Dr. Vandana Siva and Sh.
> > Rajendra Singh  etc. had
> > > > > warned against such links . Swadeshi Movement
> > also rejected it.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have published  newsletters against it and
> > our meetings were
> > > > > covered by media extensively. Yet, nothing
> > changed and UPA seemed to
> > > > > have become incarnation of NDA.
> > > > > All of them  commission-seeking and money
> > earning through misery of
> > > > > people. PM himself  heading TigerProject  has
> > witnessed signing
> > > > > KEN-Betwa link which will destroy Panna Tiger
> > Reserve.
> > > > >
> > > > > We will  send you some more material.
> > > > > Please be in touch with Dr. Vandana Shiva and
> > Sh. Himanshu Thakkar
> > also.
> > > > > cwaterp@...
> > > > > vshiva@...
> > > > >
> > > > > We will be happy if you circulate this
> > material to others concerned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > > Kisan  Vigyan Kendra
> > > > > Tindwari (Banda)  210128  UP
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dear Friends

Soybean was introduced as a CASH-PROVIDING crop in central India. It has
replaced  many useful NUTRITION PROVIDING crops which were mixed -sown
during KHARIF in this area.

Earlier there was also a practice of holding water in the field for months
during rainy season . Soybean cultivation affected all such water bodies and
the result is that the water table in many areas is fast going down. Farmers
find it  difficult as far as sustainability  in farming  is concerned.

It is essential  to study all the aspects.

In agriculture  INPUT-OUTPUT  theory does not hold good because it avoids
measuring the losses incurred by the soils i.e.the third variable  for a
longer period. and envirobnment as a whole. Personal gains for a short time
and turning environment unstable   is not the right way to go ahead .

I am sure PRADAN as an experienced organization must be aware of it.

Best wishes,

Bharatendu Prakash

----- Original Message -----
From: "Suresh Motwani" <motwanisuresh07@...>
To: <AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:17 PM
Subject: [AgriConcern] Case study, Pradan: Cashing in on Soybean in Central
India


> Cashing in on Soybean in Central India
>
> Soybean is a major cash crop in central India. While wheat ensures a
> measure of food sufficiency in most parts of Madhya Pradesh and some
> parts of Maharashtra and Rajasthan, it is soybean that takes care of
> the cash requirement of rural households throughout the year.
>
> The marketing of soybean is not a problem since there is a large
> number of oil processing factories in these areas. However, marginal
> farmers lag far behind bigger farmers in many aspects of production.
> Average productivity is less than 7 quintals per hectares (potential
> at least 25 quintals/ha). Ploughing is neither deep enough nor timely
> nor is the land pulverised.
>
> The only fertiliser used is Di-ammonium Phosphate. Farmers sow seed
> mixed with fertiliser, unknowingly damaging the seed. Row-to-row
> distance is not maintained. The seed is recycled year after year for
> 5-6 years and is neither tested nor graded. The germination rate
> varies between 26-70% and farmers often sow upto 25% extra seed
> against the recommended seed rate of 70 /ha.
>
> The Vidisha district of Madhya Pradesh has the highest per capita
> land holding across the state, and almost all farmers cultivate
> soybean. PRADAN initiated a pilot here in the Kharif season of 2002
> to develop a workable model for soybean cultivation. The highest
> yield was 25 quintals/ha, and average yield was 16-18 quintals/ha.
>
> The new package of practices included providing seed along with seed
> treatment kits; ploughing and sowing (deep plough, mixing fertiliser
> & manure, sowing distance 18"); application of weedicides and
> pesticides and services like accounts keeping and crop insurance.
> PRADAN thus scaled up this livelihood programme to cover 435 families
> in Kharif 2003 with
>
> Village campaigns to raise awareness about improved incomes from
> soybean
> Farmer organisations to introduce the improved package on 0.25
> hectares of land
> Identification and training of community based service providers.
> Participants identify a good farmer from the village who would assist
> them and be trained by PRADAN.
> Technical expertise and supervision: Crop technologists to ensure
> timely application of package of practices, performance of service
> providers and address problems (pest attacks).
> Training programmes for staff and the farmers, in the standard
> package of package.
> Arranging finance from the DPIP (District Poverty Initiatives
> Project).
> Arranging inputs in bulk at lower rates (seeds, fertilisers,
> insecticides and implements).
> Network of resource institutions like Soybean Oilseed Processors
> Association (SOPA), National Resource Centre on Soybean (NRCS), Beej
> Nigam and Mahindra Subluv.
> Regular follow up by PRADAN professionals through an MIS (management
> information system) based on crop technologists and service providers
> visiting farms.
> Yields reported from 339 farmers show that 86% registered increases
> upto 1.5 to 2.5 times compared to last year. Only 14% remained at
> earlier production levels. Highest yield achieved was 31 quintals/ha.
> Enthused, many farmers are coming forward and the team plans to take
> the programme to 1,000 farmers with 0.5 ha each in Kharif 2004.
>
> There is a concern about long-term sustainability of high yielding
> agriculture. PRADAN is exploring available alternatives that it would
> pilot to enhance the package of practices. These are, however, longer-
> term measures and will take time to develop.
>
> http://www.indianngos.com/pradan/rt_soyabeancentralindia.htm
>
> -------------------------
> Suersh Motwani
> M.Sc(Agronomy), PGDAM
> RC-Central
> Indian Soceity of Agribusiness Professional.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perhaps Susy or if anyone else knows, can throw some
more light on the restoration projects - particularly
on the reasons why these are being done now? Have the
earlier projects served their purpose or they haven't,
etc.?
Biju Negi

--- raghu <tprmenon@...> wrote:

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Susy Varughese" <susy@...>
> > To: "tpraghunath" <tprmenon@...>
> > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 2:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [science-movement] Ken-Betwa river
> link project
> >
> >
> > >
> > > One issue that also could be brought to the
> attention of the Govt or
> > > pro-river linking lobby is about the number of
> river restoration
> projects
> > > taking place around the world. The US itself has
> about 34,000 such
> > > projects running currently to restore the
> original course of rivers
> > > diverted for such projects in the past. one mega
> project going on in the
> > > europe is the Skern river project and another
> mega project going on in
> the
> > > US is the everglades restoration (there are
> enough material on the web
> on
> > > these).
> > >
> > > Susy Varughese
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, tpraghunath wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > To: cerd_psf
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:19 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest
> link in river project
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Raghu  and friends !
> > > >
> > > > Of course there has been continuous effort of
> studying  not only the
> > > > project but also the area, location of dam,
> the 240 km long canal
> > > > route and the impact of this link over lives
> of the people.  On our
> > > > level  so many meetings of people likely to be
> affected  have been
> > > > organised. Water Parliament was organised with
> help from Dr. Vandana
> > > > Shiva ; Public meetings at Banda with
> material, literature and
> > > > support from Sh. Himanshu Thakkar. Local
> people have been mobilized
> > > > who have taken oath not to a;llow this
> devastating plan. All the
> > > > districts involved  like Panna, Chhatarpr,
> Tikamgarh, in M.P. and
> > > > Hamirpur,Mahoba,  Jhansi, and Banda  in U.P.
> will be affected. The
> > > > forests, the Panna Tiger Reserve, the natural
> drainage, the irrigation
> > > > potential and the flood situation all will be
> affected. The proposed
> > > > benefit to people has been wrongly calculated.
>  Profits and commission
> > > > will only go to contractors, engineers,
> politicians, and
> > > > administrators for whose interest
> mega-projects are being planned.
> > > > Multinationals will have easy entry in water
> business  through such
> > > > projects.
> > > >
> > > > Ken and Betwa  belonging to  same river basin
> flood or dry up  at the
> > > > same time. There is hardly any surplus in Ken
> as proposed by the
> > > > project where  the figures of water
> availability have been  concocted.
> > > >
> > > > Studies have been published by Research
> Foundation  and SANDRP ,
> Delhi.
> > > >
> > > > Recently MOU has been signed  for bringing out
> possibly a DPR
> > > > overlooking  all resistances, people's voice,
> and observations of
> > > > environmentalists like  Ramaswamy Aiyer,  S.N.
> Ghosh, Medha Patkar,
> > > > Dr. Vandana Shiva, Nanaji Deshmukh, Rajendra
> Singh, Anupam Mishra and
> > > > Himanshu Thakkar etc.
> > > >
> > > > The UPA had earlier rejected the plan but now
> they have agreed to
> > > > support it which is shocking.
> > > >
> > > > I hope you will raise this issue at
> appropriate platform so that
> > > > unwanted miseries of many tribals, villagers,
> forest dwellers are
> > > > avoided and Bundelkhand region is not
> geographically and resource-wise
> > > > destroyed.
> > > >
> > > > Let rivers flow in their own coarse and not
> get broken, diverted and
> > > > hijacked.
> > > >
> > > > Yours Sincerely
> > > >
> > > > Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > for:
> > > > SAVE  KEN-BETWA FORUM, BANDA 210128
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: cerd_psf
> > > > To: AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Cc: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:21 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest
> link in river project
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> From Bhartendu's mail  it is evident that
> this has been studied quite
> > > > well. Yet, wasn't there any public hearings or
> consultations? which is
> > > > the project implementing agency and have they
> conducted any detailed
> > > > EIA on this.
> > > >
> > > > raghu./pondicherry science forum
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > To: AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Cc: cwaterp ; vandana
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:20 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest
> link in river project
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Utkarsh ji
> > > >
> > > > You are right  on Ken-Betwa Link.
> > > >
> > > > During 2002-4 I had toured entire Bundelkhand,
> organised  many
> > > > meetings, water  Parliament was organised at
> Orchha with NAVDANYA and
> > > > later several publications by us and with the
> help of SANDRP. The link
> > > > was outright rejected on scientific,
> economic,social and cultural
> front.
> > > >
> > > > Smt. Sonia Gandhi  had promised not to  go
> along with this link .So
> > > > many important environmentalists including Sh.
> Ramaswami Aiyar, Sh
> > > > Shailendra N. Ghosh,  Sh Nanaji Deshmukh, Ms.
> MedhaPatkar, Sh.
> > > > Himanshu Thakkar, Dr. Vandana Siva and Sh.
> Rajendra Singh  etc. had
> > > > warned against such links . Swadeshi Movement
> also rejected it.
> > > >
> > > > We have published  newsletters against it and
> our meetings were
> > > > covered by media extensively. Yet, nothing
> changed and UPA seemed to
> > > > have become incarnation of NDA.
> > > > All of them  commission-seeking and money
> earning through misery of
> > > > people. PM himself  heading TigerProject  has
> witnessed signing
> > > > KEN-Betwa link which will destroy Panna Tiger
> Reserve.
> > > >
> > > > We will  send you some more material.
> > > > Please be in touch with Dr. Vandana Shiva and
> Sh. Himanshu Thakkar
> also.
> > > > cwaterp@...
> > > > vshiva@...
> > > >
> > > > We will be happy if you circulate this
> material to others concerned.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Bharatendu Prakash
> > > > Kisan  Vigyan Kendra
> > > > Tindwari (Banda)  210128  UP
> > > >
> > > >
>
=== message truncated ===




____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Susy Varughese" <susy@...>
> To: "tpraghunath" <tprmenon@...>
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [science-movement] Ken-Betwa river link project
>
>
> >
> > One issue that also could be brought to the attention of the Govt or
> > pro-river linking lobby is about the number of river restoration
projects
> > taking place around the world. The US itself has about 34,000 such
> > projects running currently to restore the original course of rivers
> > diverted for such projects in the past. one mega project going on in the
> > europe is the Skern river project and another mega project going on in
the
> > US is the everglades restoration (there are enough material on the web
on
> > these).
> >
> > Susy Varughese
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, tpraghunath wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > To: cerd_psf
> > > Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:19 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Raghu  and friends !
> > >
> > > Of course there has been continuous effort of studying  not only the
> > > project but also the area, location of dam, the 240 km long canal
> > > route and the impact of this link over lives of the people.  On our
> > > level  so many meetings of people likely to be affected  have been
> > > organised. Water Parliament was organised with help from Dr. Vandana
> > > Shiva ; Public meetings at Banda with material, literature and
> > > support from Sh. Himanshu Thakkar. Local people have been mobilized
> > > who have taken oath not to a;llow this devastating plan. All the
> > > districts involved  like Panna, Chhatarpr, Tikamgarh, in M.P. and
> > > Hamirpur,Mahoba,  Jhansi, and Banda  in U.P.  will be affected. The
> > > forests, the Panna Tiger Reserve, the natural drainage, the irrigation
> > > potential and the flood situation all will be affected. The proposed
> > > benefit to people has been wrongly calculated.  Profits and commission
> > > will only go to contractors, engineers, politicians, and
> > > administrators for whose interest  mega-projects are being planned.
> > > Multinationals will have easy entry in water business  through such
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > Ken and Betwa  belonging to  same river basin  flood or dry up  at the
> > > same time. There is hardly any surplus in Ken as proposed by the
> > > project where  the figures of water availability have been  concocted.
> > >
> > > Studies have been published by Research Foundation  and SANDRP ,
Delhi.
> > >
> > > Recently MOU has been signed  for bringing out possibly a DPR
> > > overlooking  all resistances, people's voice, and observations of
> > > environmentalists like  Ramaswamy Aiyer,  S.N. Ghosh, Medha Patkar,
> > > Dr. Vandana Shiva, Nanaji Deshmukh, Rajendra Singh, Anupam Mishra and
> > > Himanshu Thakkar etc.
> > >
> > > The UPA had earlier rejected the plan but now they have agreed to
> > > support it which is shocking.
> > >
> > > I hope you will raise this issue at appropriate platform so that
> > > unwanted miseries of many tribals, villagers, forest dwellers are
> > > avoided and Bundelkhand region is not geographically and resource-wise
> > > destroyed.
> > >
> > > Let rivers flow in their own coarse and not get broken, diverted and
> > > hijacked.
> > >
> > > Yours Sincerely
> > >
> > > Bharatendu Prakash
> > > for:
> > > SAVE  KEN-BETWA FORUM, BANDA 210128
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: cerd_psf
> > > To: AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com
> > > Cc: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:21 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project
> > >
> > >
> > >> From Bhartendu's mail  it is evident that this has been studied quite
> > > well. Yet, wasn't there any public hearings or consultations? which is
> > > the project implementing agency and have they conducted any detailed
> > > EIA on this.
> > >
> > > raghu./pondicherry science forum
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash
> > > To: AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com
> > > Cc: cwaterp ; vandana
> > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:20 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Utkarsh ji
> > >
> > > You are right  on Ken-Betwa Link.
> > >
> > > During 2002-4 I had toured entire Bundelkhand, organised  many
> > > meetings, water  Parliament was organised at Orchha with NAVDANYA and
> > > later several publications by us and with the help of SANDRP. The link
> > > was outright rejected on scientific, economic,social and cultural
front.
> > >
> > > Smt. Sonia Gandhi  had promised not to  go along with this link .So
> > > many important environmentalists including Sh. Ramaswami Aiyar, Sh
> > > Shailendra N. Ghosh,  Sh Nanaji Deshmukh, Ms. MedhaPatkar, Sh.
> > > Himanshu Thakkar, Dr. Vandana Siva and Sh. Rajendra Singh  etc. had
> > > warned against such links . Swadeshi Movement also rejected it.
> > >
> > > We have published  newsletters against it and  our meetings were
> > > covered by media extensively. Yet, nothing changed and UPA seemed to
> > > have become incarnation of NDA.
> > > All of them  commission-seeking and money earning through misery of
> > > people. PM himself  heading TigerProject  has witnessed signing
> > > KEN-Betwa link which will destroy Panna Tiger Reserve.
> > >
> > > We will  send you some more material.
> > > Please be in touch with Dr. Vandana Shiva and Sh. Himanshu Thakkar
also.
> > > cwaterp@...
> > > vshiva@...
> > >
> > > We will be happy if you circulate this material to others concerned.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Bharatendu Prakash
> > > Kisan  Vigyan Kendra
> > > Tindwari (Banda)  210128  UP
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: utkarsh sinha
> > > To: farmersactivism@yahoogroups.com
> > > Cc: cova mazahar ; agri concern
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:39 PM
> > > Subject: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear friends
> > >
> > > the river link project is on. But no body from the policy makers are
> > > ready to think on the sociological and ecological impact of the
project.
> > >
> > > In our openion the project is made to provide profits to the Multi
> > > national construction componies and nothing to do with the poor
> > > farmers community.
> > >
> > > can we join hands to go in details...
> > >
> > > Utkarsh Sinha
> > >
> > > Director
> > >
> > > Center for contemporary Studies
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project
> > >
> > > The reason Ken-Betwa link was the first to get off the mark in the
> > > massive interlinking project is that it is the shortest- one large dam
> > > and a 251 km channel. There is minimal human displacement. Only 10
> > > villages will be affected, but it is the forest land in Madhya Pradesh
> > > that is going to a casualty.
> > >
> > > Out of 8,650 hectares likely to get submerged, 6,4000 hectare is
> > > forest land and 2,171 hectare culturable land. Some of it falls under
> > > the Panna National Park
> > >
> > > Out of a 533 square kilometre of Panna National Park, 45.96 square
> > > kilometre of reserve forest will be submerged at Full Reservoir Level.
> > > The forest is mostly teak and sal.
> > >
> > > The feasibility report, however, says that the impact on wildlife will
> > > be nil, as the area submerged is only 9% of the total and ``wildlife
> > > has got its natural characteristic of moving to the interior of the
> > > forest''.
> > >
> > > The region is covered by ``dense to moderate forests''. The
> > > feasibility report lists ``tigers locally called `nahar', leopard and
> > > panther'' as permanent residents of the basin apart from 153 species
> > > of birds.
> > >
> > > The report estimates that 900 families would be displaced from 10
> > > villages in Madhya Pradesh. Out of this, 34.4 per cent belong to the
> > > schedule tribes and 15.5 per to the scheduled castes.
> > >
> > > Ken is the last tributary of Yamuna before it joins Ganga. 87% of it
> > > lies in Madhya Pradesh and 12% in Uttar Pradesh.
> > >
> > > Betwa is an inter-state river that rises in Raisen district of MP -
> > > 68% of it lies in Madhya Pradesh and flows towards Jhansi district of
> > > Uttar Pradesh. This is also a tributary of Yamuna.
> > >
> > > The link will transfer excess water from Ken to Betwa through a 231
> > > kilomtre canal. Only 18 km canal would be in Uttar Pradesh. The
> > > Daudhan dam would be 287 metres.
> > >
> > > MP, Rajasthan link pact
> > >
> > > JAIPUR: Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have agreed to implement the
> > > Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal linking project. At a meeting attended by
> > > CMs Vasundhara Raje and Babulal Gaur, the two states agreed to prepare
> > > a detailed project report within six months.
> > >
> > > The states agreed to prepare a masterplan within a year to decide on
> > > the total utilisation of the 12 MAF (million acre feet) water
> > > available in the Chambal basin, Raje said. The report would be sent to
> > > the Centre for approval and funds, Raje said. - PTI
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > > Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> > > voicemail
> > >
> > > AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > Visit your group "AgriConcern" on the web.
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > AgriConcern-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Susy Varughese                        e.mail: susy@...
> > Dept. of Chemical Engineering         Tel: +44 22574172
> > IIT Madras                            Fax: +44 22570509
> > Chennai 600 036, INDIA                Office: HSB 151
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cashing in on Soybean in Central India

Soybean is a major cash crop in central India. While wheat ensures a
measure of food sufficiency in most parts of Madhya Pradesh and some
parts of Maharashtra and Rajasthan, it is soybean that takes care of
the cash requirement of rural households throughout the year.

The marketing of soybean is not a problem since there is a large
number of oil processing factories in these areas. However, marginal
farmers lag far behind bigger farmers in many aspects of production.
Average productivity is less than 7 quintals per hectares (potential
at least 25 quintals/ha). Ploughing is neither deep enough nor timely
nor is the land pulverised.

The only fertiliser used is Di-ammonium Phosphate. Farmers sow seed
mixed with fertiliser, unknowingly damaging the seed. Row-to-row
distance is not maintained. The seed is recycled year after year for
5-6 years and is neither tested nor graded. The germination rate
varies between 26-70% and farmers often sow upto 25% extra seed
against the recommended seed rate of 70 /ha.

The Vidisha district of Madhya Pradesh has the highest per capita
land holding across the state, and almost all farmers cultivate
soybean. PRADAN initiated a pilot here in the Kharif season of 2002
to develop a workable model for soybean cultivation. The highest
yield was 25 quintals/ha, and average yield was 16-18 quintals/ha.

The new package of practices included providing seed along with seed
treatment kits; ploughing and sowing (deep plough, mixing fertiliser
& manure, sowing distance 18"); application of weedicides and
pesticides and services like accounts keeping and crop insurance.
PRADAN thus scaled up this livelihood programme to cover 435 families
in Kharif 2003 with

Village campaigns to raise awareness about improved incomes from
soybean
Farmer organisations to introduce the improved package on 0.25
hectares of land
Identification and training of community based service providers.
Participants identify a good farmer from the village who would assist
them and be trained by PRADAN.
Technical expertise and supervision: Crop technologists to ensure
timely application of package of practices, performance of service
providers and address problems (pest attacks).
Training programmes for staff and the farmers, in the standard
package of package.
Arranging finance from the DPIP (District Poverty Initiatives
Project).
Arranging inputs in bulk at lower rates (seeds, fertilisers,
insecticides and implements).
Network of resource institutions like Soybean Oilseed Processors
Association (SOPA), National Resource Centre on Soybean (NRCS), Beej
Nigam and Mahindra Subluv.
Regular follow up by PRADAN professionals through an MIS (management
information system) based on crop technologists and service providers
visiting farms.
Yields reported from 339 farmers show that 86% registered increases
upto 1.5 to 2.5 times compared to last year. Only 14% remained at
earlier production levels. Highest yield achieved was 31 quintals/ha.
Enthused, many farmers are coming forward and the team plans to take
the programme to 1,000 farmers with 0.5 ha each in Kharif 2004.

There is a concern about long-term sustainability of high yielding
agriculture. PRADAN is exploring available alternatives that it would
pilot to enhance the package of practices. These are, however, longer-
term measures and will take time to develop.

http://www.indianngos.com/pradan/rt_soyabeancentralindia.htm

-------------------------
Suersh Motwani
M.Sc(Agronomy), PGDAM
RC-Central
Indian Soceity of Agribusiness Professional.

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr. Bharatendu Prakash

To: AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com

Cc: cwaterp ; vandana

Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:20 AM

Subject: Re: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project

Dear Utkarsh ji

 

You are right  on Ken-Betwa Link.

 

During 2002-4 I had toured entire Bundelkhand, organised  many meetings, water  Parliament was organised at Orchha with NAVDANYA and later several publications by us and with the help of SANDRP. The link was outright rejected on scientific, economic,social and cultural front.

 

Smt. Sonia Gandhi  had promised not to  go along with this link .So many important environmentalists including Sh. Ramaswami Aiyar, Sh Shailendra N. Ghosh,  Sh Nanaji Deshmukh, Ms. MedhaPatkar, Sh. Himanshu Thakkar, Dr. Vandana Siva and Sh. Rajendra Singh  etc. had warned against such links . Swadeshi Movement also rejected it.

 

We have published  newsletters against it and  our meetings were covered by media extensively. Yet, nothing changed and UPA seemed to have become incarnation of NDA.

All of them  commission-seeking and money earning through misery of people. PM himself  heading TigerProject  has witnessed signing KEN-Betwa link which will destroy Panna Tiger Reserve.  

 

We will  send you some more material.

Please be in touch with Dr. Vandana Shiva and Sh. Himanshu Thakkar also.

cwaterp@...

vshiva@...

 

We will be happy if you circulate this material to others concerned.

 

Regards

 

Bharatendu Prakash

Kisan  Vigyan Kendra

Tindwari (Banda)  210128  UP

 

  

----- Original Message -----

From: utkarsh sinha

To: farmersactivism@yahoogroups.com

Cc: cova mazahar ; agri concern

Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:39 PM

Subject: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project

Dear friends

the river link project is on. But no body from the policy makers are ready to think on the sociological and ecological impact of the project.

In our openion the project is made to provide profits to the Multi national construction componies and nothing to do with the poor farmers community.

can we join hands to go in details...

Utkarsh Sinha

Director

Center for contemporary Studies

Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project

The reason Ken-Betwa link was the first to get off the mark in the massive interlinking project is that it is the shortest— one large dam and a 251 km channel. There is minimal human displacement. Only 10 villages will be affected, but it is the forest land in Madhya Pradesh that is going to a casualty.

Out of 8,650 hectares likely to get submerged, 6,4000 hectare is forest land and 2,171 hectare culturable land. Some of it falls under the Panna National Park

Out of a 533 square kilometre of Panna National Park, 45.96 square kilometre of reserve forest will be submerged at Full Reservoir Level. The forest is mostly teak and sal.

The feasibility report, however, says that the impact on wildlife will be nil, as the area submerged is only 9% of the total and ‘‘wildlife has got its natural characteristic of moving to the interior of the forest’’.

The region is covered by ‘‘dense to moderate forests’’. The feasibility report lists ‘‘tigers locally called ‘nahar’, leopard and panther’’ as permanent residents of the basin apart from 153 species of birds.

The report estimates that 900 families would be displaced from 10 villages in Madhya Pradesh. Out of this, 34.4 per cent belong to the schedule tribes and 15.5 per to the scheduled castes.

Ken is the last tributary of Yamuna before it joins Ganga. 87% of it lies in Madhya Pradesh and 12% in Uttar Pradesh.

Betwa is an inter-state river that rises in Raisen district of MP — 68% of it lies in Madhya Pradesh and flows towards Jhansi district of Uttar Pradesh. This is also a tributary of Yamuna.

The link will transfer excess water from Ken to Betwa through a 231 kilomtre canal. Only 18 km canal would be in Uttar Pradesh. The Daudhan dam would be 287 metres.

MP, Rajasthan link pact

JAIPUR: Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have agreed to implement the Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal linking project. At a meeting attended by CMs Vasundhara Raje and Babulal Gaur, the two states agreed to prepare a detailed project report within six months.

The states agreed to prepare a masterplan within a year to decide on the total utilisation of the 12 MAF (million acre feet) water available in the Chambal basin, Raje said. The report would be sent to the Centre for approval and funds, Raje said. — PTI

---

Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

Note: forwarded message attached.


DR.LENIN(ASHOKA FELLOW) & Shruti,PVCHR, SA4/2A, DAULATPUR,
VARANASI-221002,UP,INDIA.PH.;91-542-2586676/88
Please visit:
http://www.universalrights.net/heroes/display.php3?id=101



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

----- Original Message -----

From: utkarsh sinha

To: farmersactivism@yahoogroups.com

Cc: cova mazahar ; agri concern

Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:39 PM

Subject: [AgriConcern] Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project

Dear friends

the river link project is on. But no body from the policy makers are ready to think on the sociological and ecological impact of the project.

In our openion the project is made to provide profits to the Multi national construction componies and nothing to do with the poor farmers community.

can we join hands to go in details...

Utkarsh Sinha

Director

Center for contemporary Studies

Ken-Betwa easiest link in river project

The reason Ken-Betwa link was the first to get off the mark in the massive interlinking project is that it is the shortest— one large dam and a 251 km channel. There is minimal human displacement. Only 10 villages will be affected, but it is the forest land in Madhya Pradesh that is going to a casualty.

Out of 8,650 hectares likely to get submerged, 6,4000 hectare is forest land and 2,171 hectare culturable land. Some of it falls under the Panna National Park

Out of a 533 square kilometre of Panna National Park, 45.96 square kilometre of reserve forest will be submerged at Full Reservoir Level. The forest is mostly teak and sal.

The feasibility report, however, says that the impact on wildlife will be nil, as the area submerged is only 9% of the total and ‘‘wildlife has got its natural characteristic of moving to the interior of the forest’’.

The region is covered by ‘‘dense to moderate forests’’. The feasibility report lists ‘‘tigers locally called ‘nahar’, leopard and panther’’ as permanent residents of the basin apart from 153 species of birds.

The report estimates that 900 families would be displaced from 10 villages in Madhya Pradesh. Out of this, 34.4 per cent belong to the schedule tribes and 15.5 per to the scheduled castes.

Ken is the last tributary of Yamuna before it joins Ganga. 87% of it lies in Madhya Pradesh and 12% in Uttar Pradesh.

Betwa is an inter-state river that rises in Raisen district of MP — 68% of it lies in Madhya Pradesh and flows towards Jhansi district of Uttar Pradesh. This is also a tributary of Yamuna.

The link will transfer excess water from Ken to Betwa through a 231 kilomtre canal. Only 18 km canal would be in Uttar Pradesh. The Daudhan dam would be 287 metres.

MP, Rajasthan link pact

JAIPUR: Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh have agreed to implement the Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal linking project. At a meeting attended by CMs Vasundhara Raje and Babulal Gaur, the two states agreed to prepare a detailed project report within six months.

The states agreed to prepare a masterplan within a year to decide on the total utilisation of the 12 MAF (million acre feet) water available in the Chambal basin, Raje said. The report would be sent to the Centre for approval and funds, Raje said. — PTI

---

Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

Note: forwarded message attached.


DR.LENIN(ASHOKA FELLOW) & Shruti,PVCHR, SA4/2A, DAULATPUR,
VARANASI-221002,UP,INDIA.PH.;91-542-2586676/88
Please visit:
http://www.universalrights.net/heroes/display.php3?id=101



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Dear,
    Instead of boycotting, it may be better to hold dialogue with these types of N.G.Os. This will expose them . Other N.G.Os. and people also should get information and knowledge of this kind of exploiting ways and politics.  Shubhamoorty

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Dear Sanjay and Tarique,
                  Your letter has thoroughly exposed the govt. that it has no real concern about the welfair of people. One can not make these kinds of lapses withought being totally out of touch with people's problems. It is a pity that these people are considered as experts.
        You have made good basic points. The discussion can be joined at a latter stage.     
SHUBHAMOORTY

----- Original Message -----
From: "tariq_rehman2001" <tariq_rehman2001@...>
To: <AgriConcern@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 5:32 PM
Subject: [AgriConcern] Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Policy Update


> Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Policy Update
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
> You might be aware that the Government of Uttar Pradesh is in the
> process of finalizing new Agriculture Policy for the state. The
> proposed policy is an attempt to update the existing UP Agriculture
> Policy 1999 through sectoral convergence of various departments and
> the objectives specific objectives are broadly to achieve a growth
> rate of over 5% in agriculture production, providing food and
> nutrition security to the people of state, bringing economic and
> regional equality among farmers for development of agriculture,
> ensuring profitable productivity in accordance with the demands
> created by the liberalized economy and globalization and conservation
> of natural resources like land, water and biodiversity while
> utilizing these resources for the development of agriculture.
>
> A committee of experts which comprises representatives from 16
> government departments plus vice chancellors of four agriculture
> universities of UP has been duly constituted by the state government
> and so far two drafts of the proposed policy have been came out. The
> final draft prepared by this committee has been submitted to the
> state Government for further actions. Now the draft is pending
> seeking approval before a high level committee constituted under the
> chairmanship of a senior Secretary in agriculture department of UP.
>
> Uttar Pradesh Laghu Simant Krishak Morcha (LSKM) - a forum of small
> and marginal farmers of Uttar Pradesh and Gorakhpur Environmental
> Action Group (GEAG) has jointly submitted its comments on the policy
> drafts on the basis that relevant government departments and other
> sectors have not been represented; interests of small and marginal
> farmers, women farmers and shared croppers, landless etc have not
> been adequately protected; women farmers are not given due attention
> to which they deserve; the policy is not able to cope with the
> challenges posed by the globalization and transnational corporations
> (TNCs) etc. These points are further elaborated as below:
>
> *  Although a number of Government departments have been
> represented through their representatives in the formation of the
> committee responsible for drafting the policy document, banking
> sector, integrated pest management department, Panchayat and several
> other important sectors have neither been consulted or represented in
> the committee.
>
> *  Despite the fact that the contribution of women farmers in
> agriculture sector has been acknowledged all over the world, the
> first draft of the policy had no mention of women farmers. While the
> issues of women farmers should be addressed separately and gender
> mainstreaming should essentially be an approach of the proposed
> policy. Also, a gender expert with sound knowledge of issues related
> to women farmers has conspicuously been absent from the list of the
> members of the experts committee.
>
> *  There has not been a single consultation with different
> groups and stakeholders particularly with small and marginal farmers.
>
> *  The old policy (UP Agriculture Policy 1999) has not been
> reviewed prior to outlining the proposed new policy, the process of
> which has been started in 2004. We strongly believe that before
> initiating the process of new policy, the performance of old policy
> viz., achievement of goals and targets etc must have been reviewed.
>
> *  We also argued that rights of marginalized farming
> communities must be protected and specific provisions should be laid
> down in the policy which must reflect that these contributory
> community have been given due attentions. There should not be a
> blanket approach while discussing problems of farming communities.
>
> *  In order to safeguard the interest of small and marginal
> farmers of the state the proposed policy should be equipped enough to
> address the challenges posed by the globalization and WTO process.
> The draft of the proposed policy has not even visualized the
> challenges.
>
> *  The duration of the proposed policy is 20 years, which is
> very long term. Given the rapidly changing world, the duration should
> have been no more than five years wherein periodical reviews through
> open consultation and feedback should be ensured.
>
> We highly appreciate if you raise these issues in your meetings,
> seminars and other discussions and share your own views, experiences,
> researches, thoughts, articles etc on this issue with the members of
> AgriConcern. The discussion which takes place in this forum and any
> other suggestions, feedback will be sent to the Chairman of the
> policy committee. I will provide contact details of the committee in
> my next email circulation soon.
>
> We welcome you again and look forward to your questions and comments.
>
> Thanking you,
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tariq Rehman
> Moderator
> AgriConcern
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AgriConcern
>
> ***AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Dear Tariq Rehman Ji
Greetings from Parmarth !
We are very  thankful to you for providing such an important information to
us .
With regards
Sanjay Singh
Parmarth

Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Policy Update


Dear friends,

You might be aware that the Government of Uttar Pradesh is in the
process of finalizing new Agriculture Policy for the state. The
proposed policy is an attempt to update the existing UP Agriculture
Policy 1999 through sectoral convergence of various departments and
the objectives specific objectives are broadly to achieve a growth
rate of over 5% in agriculture production, providing food and
nutrition security to the people of state, bringing economic and
regional equality among farmers for development of agriculture,
ensuring profitable productivity in accordance with the demands
created by the liberalized economy and globalization and conservation
of natural resources like land, water and biodiversity while
utilizing these resources for the development of agriculture.

A committee of experts which comprises representatives from 16
government departments plus vice chancellors of four agriculture
universities of UP has been duly constituted by the state government
and so far two drafts of the proposed policy have been came out. The
final draft prepared by this committee has been submitted to the
state Government for further actions. Now the draft is pending
seeking approval before a high level committee constituted under the
chairmanship of a senior Secretary in agriculture department of UP.

Uttar Pradesh Laghu Simant Krishak Morcha (LSKM) - a forum of small
and marginal farmers of Uttar Pradesh and Gorakhpur Environmental
Action Group (GEAG) has jointly submitted its comments on the policy
drafts on the basis that relevant government departments and other
sectors have not been represented; interests of small and marginal
farmers, women farmers and shared croppers, landless etc have not
been adequately protected; women farmers are not given due attention
to which they deserve; the policy is not able to cope with the
challenges posed by the globalization and transnational corporations
(TNCs) etc. These points are further elaborated as below:

*  Although a number of Government departments have been
represented through their representatives in the formation of the
committee responsible for drafting the policy document, banking
sector, integrated pest management department, Panchayat and several
other important sectors have neither been consulted or represented in
the committee.

*  Despite the fact that the contribution of women farmers in
agriculture sector has been acknowledged all over the world, the
first draft of the policy had no mention of women farmers. While the
issues of women farmers should be addressed separately and gender
mainstreaming should essentially be an approach of the proposed
policy. Also, a gender expert with sound knowledge of issues related
to women farmers has conspicuously been absent from the list of the
members of the experts committee.

*  There has not been a single consultation with different
groups and stakeholders particularly with small and marginal farmers.

*  The old policy (UP Agriculture Policy 1999) has not been
reviewed prior to outlining the proposed new policy, the process of
which has been started in 2004. We strongly believe that before
initiating the process of new policy, the performance of old policy
viz., achievement of goals and targets etc must have been reviewed.

*  We also argued that rights of marginalized farming
communities must be protected and specific provisions should be laid
down in the policy which must reflect that these contributory
community have been given due attentions. There should not be a
blanket approach while discussing problems of farming communities.

*  In order to safeguard the interest of small and marginal
farmers of the state the proposed policy should be equipped enough to
address the challenges posed by the globalization and WTO process.
The draft of the proposed policy has not even visualized the
challenges.

*  The duration of the proposed policy is 20 years, which is
very long term. Given the rapidly changing world, the duration should
have been no more than five years wherein periodical reviews through
open consultation and feedback should be ensured.

We highly appreciate if you raise these issues in your meetings,
seminars and other discussions and share your own views, experiences,
researches, thoughts, articles etc on this issue with the members of
AgriConcern. The discussion which takes place in this forum and any
other suggestions, feedback will be sent to the Chairman of the
policy committee. I will provide contact details of the committee in
my next email circulation soon.

We welcome you again and look forward to your questions and comments.

Thanking you,

Regards,


Tariq Rehman
Moderator
AgriConcern
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AgriConcern

***AgriConcern is hosted by Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group***

Former bonded labour still in poverty - Six years ago, Kamaiays
(agricultural bonded labourers) successfully broke the shackle of
bonded labour after a number of high profile court cases. But they
remain in poverty with no rights to the land or housing that was
promised to them. The majority of ex-Kamiayas now reside in open
places, barren land, near river banks and jungles.

Read full story...
http://www.csr-asia.com/index.php?p=2558

visit  ,  forward   http://visualjobs.com/



____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions – no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

visit  ,  post , forward--  all  about   spices

http://keralaholidays.info/spices.html



____________________________________________________
Yahoo! Sports
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com

visit  ,  post , forward

visit  http://greatindianspices.blogspot.com