Category: Discourses

Indian Farm Laws Repeal: A Boost to Global Food Sovereignty Movement

 

November 19, 2021, marks a victory day not only for the protesting Indian farmers but also for the entire social movement advocating food sovereignty globally. PM Modi repealed the three farms laws that sparked agitation.  Farmers, primarily from  Haryana and Punjab, have been in the street since August 2020, protesting three farm laws passed by the central government through parliament. The Indian farmers’ protest has dominated global media, galvanizing broad-based and diverse advocacy groups worldwide.  The three laws are a) The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, which aimed at allowing trade in agricultural produce outside the existing APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) mandis; b) The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, which aimed to provide a framework for contract farming; c) The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020, which aimed at removing commodities such as cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion, and potato from the list of essential commodities. The three laws aimed at deregulating food price control, liberalizing the control of food stocks and trade, and giving corporations more freedom to contract farming with smallholder farmers. The core discontent of the farmers is that new laws will together bypass state-regulated agricultural markets, remove limits on stockpiling of agricultural commodities, and deregulate minimum support prices. Farmers fear this will open India’s agriculture sector to corporate control, destroy the public food distribution system and small-scale food production, and devastate farm incomes. For more than a year, Indian farmers have been enduring biting cold, scorching heat, pouring rain, tear gases, and police batons in their fight for food sovereignty through national strikes, working alongside trade unions but also reaching out to gather wider support of India’s population.  In a surprise move on Friday, Nov 19, PM Modi announced the repeal of the three laws. There may be socio-political undercurrents triggering the repeal but on the surface, it is relentless agitation that compelled the government to retreat from its stance. This blog intends to draw the lessons learned from the repeal and underscore its implications on the global food sovereignty agenda. It is not the intention here to enter into the genesis of farmer protest and take a position whether the laws are good or bad for the farmers in India.  We will touch on the conceptual underpinnings of food sovereignty hoping it will help to view the protest from the food sovereignty spectrum.

Food Sovereignty: Conceptual Underpinnings

Food sovereignty is rooted in the ongoing global struggles over control of food, land, water, and livelihoods. There is no universal definition for food sovereignty, however, it is commonly understood that people who produce, distribute, and consume food also control the mechanisms and policies of food production and distribution against government or corporations defining policies and agendas. Declaration of Nyéléni, the first global forum on food sovereignty, Mali, 2007 defined food sovereignty as  “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations.”  It is adopted by 80 countries. Food sovereignty is a transnational social movement and advocacy network of peasants, farmers, fisherfolk, and other peoples dependent on agricultural production for their livelihoods. Originally it started in the Americas and Europe and expanded quickly to Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world as a social movement resisting the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture and its imposition of multilateral disciplines on domestic agriculture policy.

The concept was first framed by the international
 peasant movement La Via Campesina at the World Food Summit in 1996. Food sovereignty respects the right of food providers to have control over their land, seeds, and water, and rejects the privatization of natural resources.   La Via Campesina has laid out  seven principles of food sovereignty as outlined below:

  • Food: A Basic Human Right.
  • Agrarian Reform.
  • Protecting Natural Resources.
  • Reorganizing Food Trade.
  • Ending the Globalization of Hunger.
  • Social Peace.
  • Democratic control.

The thrust of the food sovereignty movement is that the control over the food system needs to remain in the hands of farmers, for whom farming is both a way of life and a means of producing food. As of now seven countries (Ecuador, Venezuela, Mali, Bolivia, Nepal, Senegal, Egypt)  have enshrined food sovereignty in their constitution. But the implementation is yet to be seen.

Lessons learned

The three farm laws in India mirror a global trend in the food sector in which corporate interests are taking over food systems and exerting their influence on food and agriculture policies at all levels. In addition, the way the laws were enacted reflects the arrogance of governing elites that they have all the solutions to the problems farming communities are facing. This is grounded on the prevailing notion that farmers are only part of the problem not part of the solution. Those who formulate policies considered agriculture a trading commodity and, perhaps, did not realize there is a cultural element attached to agriculture that needs to be approached delicately.   Farm laws were first introduced through ordinances and then passed through parliament in September 2020 without much debate, let alone having conversations with farmers, farmer unions, state government, and stakeholders. This sparked agitation and brewed mistrust between the government and farming communities. After almost 15 months long agitation PM Modi was compelled to bow down before the protestors confessing he  “could not convince farmers despite good intentions behind the laws.”  Prominent Indian economist Ashok Gulati opines that the government miserably failed to communicate the spirit of the laws to the farmers.  Whatever the justifications for enactment or withdrawal of the laws, this will be recorded as a landmark event in the history of the farmer movement in the world. It has taught lessons not only for India but also it will have far-reaching ripple effects globally.

  •  Persistent opposition to the laws and eventual withdrawal sent a clear message that any future attempts to reform the rural agricultural economy would require a much wider consultation for better design of reforms and wider acceptance. No matter how strong the government is, it cannot impose reforms if genuine democratic process of consultation is not followed. This means government should know how to introduce reform measures, not only what to reform. This entails adopting a consultative, transparent, and better communicated reform process. This is what one of the principles of food sovereignty- democratic control of the food system, refers to.
  • There is power in the collective voice of the weaker section of society, like smallholder farmers; however, it needs patience and persistence to be successful. This victorious protest has bolstered future food sovereignty movements in India and elsewhere.

Farmers’ victory in India lends credence to the food sovereignty movement.  La Via Campesina has celebrated the victory by sending congratulatory messages to alliances and global civil society. The protest has shown that the collective voice of farmers can resist government intervention if thrust against their interests. It can be speculated that the democratization of the reform process would gain traction, and farmers would have a say in shaping their food systems.

Digitalization of Agriculture: The Silver Lining of COVID 19 crisis

As COVID 19 pandemic sweeps across the world, we see a rapid change in the way we interact and do our business. Virtual existence is a new reality as we confine to our homes, do video conferences, facetime with families, zoom with teachers, and approach telemedicine, making social distancing new normal.  Technology is now a lifeline, no more a choice or luxury, even octogenarians use apps for home delivery of their daily necessities. Home delivery is not common only from retailers or groceries; farmers have organized themselves to deliver farm produce to consumers by connecting through digital platforms or mobile devices. Delivery of training packages through digital means has become popular during the lockdown. These adaptations during the crisis give some sense of optimism that resilient communities would emerge out of this horrific pandemic.

Looming Crisis

Corona has not spared any country rich or poor, north or south, first world or third world. The lives and livelihoods of millions is at peril. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) projects that globally over 140 million people could fall into extreme poverty (measured against $1.90 poverty line)  in 2020- an increase of 20% from the present level. This number may go up as we do not know how long it will take the world to return to the situation before corona.  Experts warn the health crisis is turning into a food crisis, which may be even more devastating. Indeed, 2020 will undoubtedly leave an impact for years to come in every aspect of human life.

The return of migrant workers from abroad due to the corona crisis is another nightmare for many developing countries. Governments will have to deal with two immediate challenges: a) increased food security threat due to disruption of the food supply chain; b)  socio-political ramifications of unemployment created due to the economic slow down within the country. Additionally, the return of migrant workers from abroad will have immense pressure on the governments on both fronts, food security, and employment creation. The COVID  will have a differential impact on migration for developed and developing countries. An acute shortage of migrant workers has damaged the food production system of developed countries. There will be a push to find an alternate way of doing farm operations.  The developed countries would eventually accelerate the automation capacities replacing migrant workers.  On the other hand, developing countries would see a decline in the foreign labor market. Governments will have to absorb the large labor force within the country with this shift of global migration dynamics.

The Silver Lining

 Farmers have faced new and unprecedented challenges of lockdown and disruption of the supply chain system. They cannot postpone sowing seeds in their land, unlike canceling a conference or football match. They have to sell their produce amid all odds of the pandemic.

Even though an overwhelmingly bleak situation portrayed by media, anecdotal stories show that farmers have navigated through the difficult time to deliver their produce to the doorsteps of customers using digital platforms in different parts of the world, connecting directly to consumers. Digitalization of agriculture, including the use of mobile technologies and devices, internet, digitally -delivered services, and apps, has been at the forefront of modern agriculture. However, the application of the tools has been at a limited scale in developing countries; only innovators and smart entrepreneurs have been able to benefit from these tools. There are several reasons why developing countries are not able to scale up the adoption of this technology; we will not enter into this discussion here. The forced use of digital technology has intensified the existing trend of digitalization in all walks of life, including farming.  Farmers, instead of relying on market intermediaries to collect their produce, have organized themselves to connect to the consumers.

Similarly, development workers and service providers have made digital platforms means of disseminating technical information and rendering services. Pandemic has taught us those who adapt can survive.  Digitalization has thus stood out as a silver lining of COVID 19.  And,  there is reason to believe that post-COVID agriculture will be an information-based high tech enterprise where youth can see their future.

The Development I Understood: Reflection of my development journey

This is a recollection of my understanding of development as a concept and process since my early childhood days.  My intention here is not to enter a philosophical discourse on the meaning of development; instead, try to show how my understanding of development took different shades in different phases of my life.  

Development as an Object of Free Distribution 

It was around 1962-63 for the first time I heard the word “development” meaning “Bikas” in Nepali when I was in elementary school.  My cousin, after a year-long training in Kathmandu, returned to Bajhang, my home district as Village Development Worker (Gram Bikas Karyakarta).   He was a rural development worker trained to carry out community development activities popularly known as Bikas. He used to talk about new crop varieties (Bikase Jat), chemical fertilizers (Bikase Mal), and agricultural tools (Bikase Aujar). I heard him talking about the distribution of improved seeds and fertilizers. It used to be free back then. I remember him saying all those inputs came from abroad (Videsh). The term Bikas was just becoming popular then. My understanding of Bikas was an act of distributing external inputs free of cost.

Development as a Package of Technology

After high school, my academic training in agriculture, and subsequent work with the government extension system shaped my understanding of development firmly.  I think this builds on my childhood understanding of development as an object of free distribution. My training and organizational orientation focused on changing traditional practices and adopting new technologies developed somewhere else.  It was assumed that conventional methods and practices are inferior and solution to the endemic hunger and poverty is the adoption of modern technology. Agricultural extension tools and methods grounded on diffusion theories primarily focused on the adoption of new practices by changing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of farmers.  This notion of development labeled farmers in general as ignorant while nicely dressed “experts” have all the answers.  Those who do not take the advice were considered “laggards”.  There was little analysis of why farmers say “no” to expert’s advice.  I was conditioned to believe that development will only happen if the package of technology developed by experts is transferred to “ignorant” farmers. Extension workers like me were loud on teaching and persuading the use of pesticides on crops and vegetables, enrich the soil with chemical fertilizers, and change traditional crops with modern varieties.  That was development.   I never thought of the resultant impact of adoption after 20 or 30 years.  Now I realize this was a myopic view of development.

Development as a Complex System

During the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, there was a dominance of systems thinking in the development industry. Agriculture development was conceived as one of the components of a more extensive rural development system, which included other sectors such as roads, drinking water, education, health, etc. It assumed coordination among these sectors is critically important to ensure sectoral success and,  ultimately, the development of communities. Based on this premise, integrated rural development projects (IRDPs) funded by multilateral and bilateral agencies dominated the development landscape. This development thinking subsumed the transfer of institutional blueprints as a precursor for the technology transfer process.  Even within the agriculture sector, systems thinking shaped project development mindset resulting in the design of cropping systems and later farming systems research and extension projects.  I think this was a big shift from viewing development as a linear process to a complex system of interrelationships.  In theory, people are at the center of this interrelationship. As I remember my experience with the World Bank-funded Mahankali Integrated Rural Development Project and Farming system research project in Nepal, I was elated with the new development approach in the beginning. However, I found no difference in the way I was implementing the project. Participation emerged as a buzzword. Attending meetings, joining fairs, carrying out local verification trials were celebrated as beneficiary participation and got space in progress reports.  As I understand participation now, it can be viewed in the continuum as “domestication” at one end where people are conditioned to do what they are told to do to “empowerment” where people make their own life choices at the other end.  I confess I was working in the domestication segment.

Development as a Values-based Holistic Transformation

It was only when I joined Heifer International, and observed communities, I realized I was one of the actors of “development drama” over the past several decades. I now realize the transfer of technology and the introduction of institutional innovation is necessary but not sufficient condition for lasting development. It is not my intention to discredit past work; fantastic things have happened; people have seen a change in their lives in different time and space.  I just want simply to underscore the evolution of my thinking process about development.  In the communities, I visited there has been an unbelievable transformation in the way individuals viewed their lives. The communities trapped in the dark cloud of “hopelessness” have started to see the light of “hopefulness”. The communities subjected to an intergenerational unacceptable chain of social discrimination have witnessed a rising tide of “silent revolution” breaking those chains by fostering solidarity and social harmony in the community. This transformation was possible with the unconventional approach of working with the communities. This approach is values-based holistic community development grounded on the premise that unleashing human potential is a prerequisite for socio-economic transformation.  This means human development needs to be seen from physical (relates to the quality of life), mental (relates to knowledge, skills, education), spiritual (related to values, beliefs, ethics), social (harmonious relationships), and ecological (relates to connectedness with ecosystem) perspectives.  Holistic development in these five dimensions unleashes human potential triggering transformational change. When this change process is guided by positive values ingrained in the communities, “development” becomes an organic upward spiraling process. I think this process leads to the realization of genuine development. My mission towards this genuine development through values-based holistic community development continues.