Pesticide misuse in Jharkhand (eastern India) and the nascent organic farming movement:

Political ecology of hunger and malnutrition

Dr Joe Hill

(currently at SoLaWi Bonn)

Continuing Lecture Session (Ringvorlesung) on the theme of “Challenges and possibilities for Sustainable Development Goals: Food security, human development and natural resource management”

The Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, The University of Kassel

20th November 2018

Wolfgang Sachs on the SDGs

- The SDGs are complex, ponderous & visionary

But non-binding, lack a sanction mechanism…

- Even benevolent governments in awkward position:

- on one hand an objective urgency,

- on other hand simultaneous obligations to capitalist markets & consumption wishes of their societies

- The disconnect between international rhetoric and national measures is a trait of current politics

Source: Sachs, W. The Sustainable Development Goals and Laudato si’: varieties of Post-Development? Third World Quarterly, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2017.1350822

Interlude: Poverty in the UK

Statement on Visit to the United Kingdom, by Professor Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, London, 16th November 2018

“14 million people, a fifth of the population, live in poverty. Four million of these are more than 50% below the poverty line, and 1.5 million are destitute, unable to afford basic essentials.”

“For almost one in every two children to be poor in twenty-first century Britain is not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster, all rolled into one.”

Source: The United Nations Human Rights. Office of the High Commission. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23881&LangID=E

A People’s Food Policy: June 2017

- Over 150 food and farming initiatives contributed

- Forward written by Olivier de Schutter, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food (2008-14):

~ England currently has no food policy

~ Old idea of ‘efficiency’ now replaced with need for resilience

~ Almost 25% British population obese, up 10% in past 20 years – low cost food is making people sick

~ Pathway thinking, multi-year strategy required to produce high quality food

~ Food democracy needed to overcome lobbying of agribusiness, to deepen democracy, to address long-term concerns of soil and human health… Report focuses on England because

Scotland, Wales, etc have powers of devolved governance and have already taken steps to shift how food systems function and are governed

Source: https://www.peoplesfoodpolicy.org/

Pesticide misuse in Jharkhand (eastern India) and the nascent organic movement:

Political ecology of hunger and malnutrition

Organic farming is viable and beneficial (left), non-organic is extremely dangerous (right)

Agrarian crisis in Jharkhand

• Jharkhand: independent state in 2000, population ~33 million, area ~ 80,000 km2

In 2017 Jharkhand ranked first among India’s states in terms of both proportion of underweight under-5s (48%) and prevalence of wasting (weight for height) in under-5s (29%). Almost a decade earlier, a MSSRF-WFP study ranked rural Jharkhand the most food insecure of India’s states

• In 2017 we conducted a study in 11 districts of Jharkhand with 493 farming families, 74% of which were indigenous…

Agrarian crisis in Jharkhand

Indian context

• Successive governments have failed to address farmers’ needs

• Agricultural development is still understood by government agencies and scientists to mean following path of Green Revolution (GR): creation of dependency, debt and suicide, poor health, loss of agro-biodiversity, damage to environment…

• GR of 1960s-1970s provided a heavily subsidised seed-fertiliser package to farmers who had assured irrigation

• However, current private sector led agricultural paradigm includes none of this, instead forces poor, mostly subsistence farmers into a costly and unsustainable mode of production

Agrarian crisis in JharkhandKey findings

Regional variation in cropping patterns

• Vast majority of households happy with farming as occupation and almost all want their children to continue farming

• Majority of farming households grow cereals, pulses, oilseeds and vegetables; on average 10-11 different crops

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rice Maize Wheat Maduwa Barley

Per

cen

tage

of

farm

ing

ho

use

ho

lds

Dumka(n=60)

Palamau(n=99)

Hazaribagh(n=53)

Ranchi(n=133)

Gumla(n=79)

Singhbhum(n=69)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Kurthi Urad Rahar Khesari Chana

Per

cen

tage

of

farm

ing

ho

use

ho

lds Dumka

(n=60)Palamau(n=99)Hazaribagh(n=53)Ranchi(n=133)Gumla(n=79)Singhbhum(n=69)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per

cen

tage

of

farm

ing

ho

use

ho

lds

Dumka(n=60)Palamau(n=99)Hazaribagh(n=53)Ranchi(n=133)Gumla(n=79)Singhbhum(n=69)

Agrarian crisis in JharkhandKey findings

• Although considered so by lay persons, Jharkhand’s agriculture is no longer default organic

• Most households have used fertilisers and 75% use pesticides

• Farmers apply pesticides without using protective clothing

0

20

40

60

80

100

Per

cen

tage

of

farm

ing

ho

use

ho

lds

Sownhybridrice

Notsownhybridrice

F1 hybrid rice cultivation, by cluster

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Nu

mb

er o

f fa

rmin

g h

ou

seh

old

s

No.farmersusingchemicalfertiliser

No.farmersusingpesticide

First use of fertiliser, pesticide, and hybrid rice

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er

of

farm

ers

Usechemicalpesticides

Not use

District-wise use of chemical pesticides

• At the time of its formation in 2000 Jharkhand state was almost organic

• Government statistics show that in Jharkhand, chemical pesticide consumption rose 6-fold over 6 years (2011-17) from 84 to 541 metric tonnes

• Use of pesticide by farmers has increased in recent years due to

– Promotion by government policies and programmes, and

– Promotion by NGOs

– And lack of proper support…

Pesticide use in Jharkhand

84

151 151

430

650

493

541

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Consumption of technical grade chemical pesticide in Jharkhand (metric tonnes)

Government of India, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage (2016-17 figures provisional) http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/pesticides-monitoring-documentation

• Analysis of av. pesticide consumption (in kg per 1000 persons)

• Jharkhand, consumption risen from 2.2 to 13.9 kg per 1000 persons over 6 years

Per capita consumption of pesticides

Government of India, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage (2016-17 figures provisional) http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/pesticides-monitoring-documentation

0

50

100

150

200

Jharkhand (39) Bihar (99) Punjab (28) Uttar Pradesh(204)

Maharashtra(114)

Andhra Pradesh& Telangana

(85)

Karnataka (64) Kerala (35)

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Pesticide study with PAN India

• Contacted PAN India after observing wrong usage of pesticides by farmers

• PAN India invited us to join an India-level study on 5 pesticides

• Survey of 25 farmers, 4 retailers, 4 farm labourers, government doctor

Findings (1 of 2)

• Sampled farmers used a total of 42 insecticides, 8 herbicides, and 8 fungicides; of which just 4 insecticides, 3 herbicides, and 1 fungicide were used on approvedcrops (CIBRC approved)

• Highly toxic pesticides like Monocrotophos, which is banned for use on vegetables in India since 2005, was found to be used on chilli, capsicum, and cucumber

• 6 insecticides approved for use only on cotton, which is not even grown in Jharkhand, were used on veggies

• Farmers unaware of concepts of approved use and waiting period, or of need to use personal protective equipment (PPE)

Pesticide study with PAN India

• Contacted PAN India after observing wrong usage of pesticides by farmers

• PAN India invited us to join an India-level study on 5 pesticides

• Survey of 25 farmers, 4 retailers, 4 farm labourers, government doctor

Findings (2 of 2)

• 70% of surveyed farmers have suffered health effects from pesticide exposure

• None of the farmers understand the dangers of the highly hazardous pesticides they use

• None had received training or advice from government

• One farm labourer uses bare hand to mix pesticides with water, another suffered temporary paralysis of his lower arm after he spilt pesticide on it while mixing pesticides

• Input dealers have limited understanding of the dangers of pesticides

• Civil society thin on ground, ‘free-for-all’ for agribusiness

Pesticide study with PAN India

Besides report, findings published in social media and newspaper (Times of India)

Pesticide regulation in India

• Highly hazardous chemical pesticides banned in other countries sold openly

• 290 pesticide molecules registered for use, total of ~700 pesticide formulations

• Input dealers recommend pesticides for non-approved uses (no regulation)

• Imperative that the central and state governments regulate the sector properly

• Yet India’s pesticide sector governed by 50-year old act, Insecticides Act 1968 and Insecticides Rules 1971 which has never been properly implemented,

– e.g. those engaged in spraying operations should receive an annual medical examination; and

– those handling and applying pesticides should be adequately protected with appropriate clothing and respiratory devices

• The body in charge, the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) , provides very little information in public domain, in denial of problem

An example: ‘Roghar’

Example: What isROGHAR?

Roghar is Dimethoate 30% EC

• CIBRC provides only information on what it calls ‘recommended uses’ (http://ppqs.gov.in/divisions/cib-rc/major-uses-of-pesticides)

DIMETHOATE 30% EC (दिमितोएट )Crop Common name of

the pest

Dosage / ha Waiting

Period (days)a.i (gm) Formulation

(gm/ml)

Dilution in

Water (Liter)

Bajra Milky weed bug 180-200 594-660 500-1000

Maize Stem borer

Shoot fly

200

350

660

1155

500-1000

500-1000

Sorghum Midge 500 1650 500-1000

Castor Jassids, Mites

Semi looper

250

350

825

1155

500-1000

500-1000

Mustard Leaf minor, Aphid ,

Sawfly

200 660 500-1000

Safflower Aphid 200 660 500-1000

Bhindi Aphid

Leaf hopper, Jassid

700

600

2310

1980

500-1000

500-1000

Brinjal Shoot borer 200 660 500-1000

Cabbage &

Cauliflower

Aphid , Painted bug

Mustard aphid

200 660 500-1000

Chillies Mite 300 990 500-1000

Onion Thrips 200 660 500-1000

Potato Thrips 200 660 500-1000

Tomato Aphids

White fly

200

300

660

990

500-1000

500-1000

Apple Stem borer 0.03% 1485-1980 1500-2000

Apricot Aphid 0.03% 1485-1980 1500-2000

Roghar is Dimethoate 30% EC

• At PPDB website it says Dimethoate “…may have serious health implications for humans as it is an acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor and may cause reproduction or development effects. It is highly toxic to birds and honeybees..”

PPDB shows, ‘risk is acceptable when using protective clothing’

But Jharkhand’s farmers do not wear protective clothing, neither is such clothing available in the shops or from government offices

“possibly a carcinogen, disrupts thyroid hormone actions… possible liver toxicant…”

- Such problems will never be detected or treatment given for a Jharkhand/Indian farmer

Pesticides and suicide

• Pesticides are routinely used in suicides

• A government hospital collated information for us:

In 1 year period (April 2017-March 2018), 51 cases

of attempted suicide in surrounding villages

• ‘Successful’ suicides are rarely reported…

• Government collects no data

According to the WHO, “A leading means of suicide in

many parts of the world is self-poisoning with pesticides”

“A recent study of a proposed ban on pesticides in India concluded that such a policy would reduce health inequities … given the greater availability of pesticides in rural areas”

Pesticide regulation in India cont.

• The draft Pesticides Management Bill 2017 (earlier version 2008) has been largely shaped by the interests of the pesticide industry

– E.g. includes no provisions to minimise pesticide use

– “...is not designed to protect the crop, the farmer or environment” PAN India

• Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare called meeting of stakeholders to discuss issues related to the Pesticides Management Bill, 2017

• Invitees to meeting on 11th January 2018 included representatives of

– 8 Pesticide Associations,

– 1 Retailers Association,

– Corporates United Phosphorus Limited, Syngenta and Dow Agro-Sciences,

– 12 state governments,

– just 5 Farmers Associations

• Comments by the stakeholders made public in the Minutes reveal very few participants were concerned about health of farmers and consumers

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 2017

“Countries have established significant national laws and practices in an effort to reduce pesticide harm; however, policies and levels of protection vary significantly. For instance, there are often serious shortcomings in national registration processes prior to the sale of pesticide products. It is very difficult to assess the risk of pesticides submitted for registration, ... Further, reviews may not take place frequently enough and regulatory authorities may be under strong pressure from the industry to prevent or reverse bans on hazardous pesticides. Without standardized, stringent regulations on the production, sale and acceptable levels of pesticide use, the burden of the negative effects of pesticides is felt by agricultural workers, children, the poor and other vulnerable communities, especially in countries that have weaker regulatory and enforcement systems”

“The oligopoly of the chemical industry has enormous power. Recent mergers have resulted in just three powerful corporations: Monsanto and Bayer, Dow and Dupont, and Syngenta and ChemChina. They control more than 65 per cent of global pesticide sales. Serious conflicts of interest issues arise, as they also control almost 61 per cent of commercial seed sales. The pesticide industry’s efforts to influence policymakers and regulators have obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions globally. When challenged, justifications for lobbying efforts include claims that companies comply with their own codes of conduct, or that they follow local laws”

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 2017

“Companies often contest scientific evidence of the hazards related to their products, with some even standing accused of deliberately manufacturing evidence to infuse scientific uncertainty and delay restrictions. There are also serious claims of scientists being “bought” to restate industry talking points. Other egregious practices include infiltrating federal regulatory agencies via the “revolving door”, with employees shifting between regulatory agencies and the pesticide industry. Pesticide manufacturers also cultivate strategic “public-private” partnerships that call into question their culpability or help bolster the companies’ credibility. Companies also consistently donate to educational institutions that conduct research on pesticides, and such institutions are becoming dependent on industry owing to shrinking public funding”

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 2017

Pesticide bans in India

• Central government reluctant to phase out highly hazardous pesticides, but several state governments made progress IN THE PAST:

• Kerala

– Prohibition of use of Endosulfan in 2006

– In 2010, use of all pesticides having a high toxicity level (red and yellow label) banned in Kasargodu district

– In 2011, state government passed order to ban manufacture, sale and use of 14 extremely and highly toxic pesticides, and in 2015, a further two pesticides were banned, and 7 classified under restricted category

– In 2016, circular declared state-wide campaign against distribution, sale of banned pesticides and to regulate use of restricted pesticides

• Sikkim

– Began process of going organic in 2003 with state legislative assembly resolution

– In 2014 the ‘Sikkim Agricultural, Horticultural Inputs and Livestock Feed Regulation Act, 2014’ passed, banning import of chemical inputs for farming

Pesticide bans in India

• Central government recently passed an order that forbids individual states from banning pesticides, e.g.

• Punjab

– Punjab’s Special Secretary, Agriculture, on 30th January 2018 issued a notice with subject heading: Regulation of sale of insecticides in Punjab

– It stated that Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana and the Punjab State Farmer’s Commission (PSFC) have brought to the attention of state government, that 20 insecticides have a harmful affect on human beings, environmental sustainability, and economic viability

– It recommended the 20 insecticides be discontinued in Punjab immediately

– However quickly became apparent Punjab could not ban the pesticides…

Pesticide bans in India

Table: Recommendation of expert committee with respect to 66 pesticides (2013-16)

18th August 2018, modest victory when Central govt banned 11 pesticides (red)

S. No. Category No. of

Pesticides

Name of the Pesticides (WHO class I pesticides in bold)

1. I- to be continued 18 Aluminium phosphide, Bifenthrin, Carbosulfan, Chlorfenapyr, Chlorothalonil,

Dazomet, Diflubenzuron, Ethofenprox, Fenpropathrin, Iprodione, Kasugamycin,

Mepiquat chloride, Metaldehyde, Paraquat dichloride, Pretilachlor, Propargite,

Propineb and Zinc phosphide

2. II- to be reviewed again in

2018, after completion of

the recommended studies

27 Acephate, Atrazine, Benfuracarb, Butachlor, Captan, Carbendazim,

Carbofuran, Chlorpyriphos, Deltamethrin, Dicofol, Dimethoate,

Dinocap, Diuron, 2,4-D, Malathion, Mancozeb, Methomyl, Monocrotophos,

Oxyfluorfen, Pendimethalin, Quinalphos, Sulfosulfuron, Thiodicarb,

Thiophanate methyl, Thiram, Zineb, Ziram

3. III- to be phased out by

2020

6 Alachlor, Dichlorvos, Phorate, Phosphamidon, Triazophos, Trichlorfon

4. IV- ban to be continued 1 Fenitrothion

5. V- to be banned (from

2018)

13 Benomyl, Carbaryl, DDT, Diazinon, Fenarimol, Fenthion, Linuron, MEMC,

Methyl Parathion, Sodium Cyanide, Thiometon, Tridemorph, Trifluralin

6. VI- not reviewed as it is

sub-judice

1 Endosulfan (banned as of January 2017-Supreme Court ban)

Legal route

• Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) submitted petition to Supreme Court of India in 2017 seeking a ban on pesticides banned in other countries but registered and used in India

• Argued that expert committee (previous page) only reviewed 66 pesticides, whereas around 100 need to be considered

• Current list (Nov 2018) includes 110 ‘bannable’ pesticides on sale

• Of these, 41 are imported into India from countries that have themselves banned the use, or from corporations who manufacture them in a third country but in whose home country the use is banned, e.g.

– Acephate (banned in China, imported to India from China)

– Alachlor (banned in the EU, imported to India by Monsanto USA which is now owned by the German corporation Bayer Crop Science)

– Atrazine (not approved in the EU, imported to India from Italy and the UK)

– Carbofuran (not approved in the EU and banned in China, imported to India from Hungary in the EU and from China)

– Fipronil (not approved in the EU, imported to India by BASF, France, which is a German corporate, and from Bayer China, Bayer France and Bayer USA)

Nascent organic movement in India

• Pockets of hope across India, growing awareness among farmers/consumers

• Some southern Indian states show decreasing trend in pesticide consumption

– e.g. Andhra Pradesh & Telangana from 104 to 67 kg/1000 persons, and

– Karnataka from 29 to 20 kg/1000 persons

• This might be explained by Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) movement, which enjoys support of the Karnataka and AP state governments

• E.g. On 2nd June 2018, Andhra Pradesh government launched an ambitious scale-up of the ZBNF programme to take it to 6 million farmers by 2024

• However, there are concerns

– Corporate takeover and loot, GMOs, gene editing agenda of Bill Gates etc.

– ZBNF has since been renamed SPSF (Subash Palekar Spiritual Farming) by the guy who coined the term ZBNF… Palekar is also vehemently opposed to ‘organic farming’ which he and followers claim is a Western agenda…!

Nascent organic movement-Jharkhand

• On 9th December 2017, Jharkhand’s Agricultural Minister announced state will go “fully organic by 2025”

• Agricultural dept announced organic agriculture to be promoted in several districts

• Government trend is to support “governmental NGOs”, to curb activities of NGOs

• Civil society was already weak… may become weaker…

• Several NGOs are working in organic farming field but all suffer funding constraints

Nascent organic movement-Jharkhand

• Question of how state govt envisages a transition to organic is unclear

• Jharkhand does not have an Agricultural Policy or an Organic Farming Policy

– Whereas Sikkim, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Kerala, MP, Bihar and Maharashtra have all announced their own organic farming policies

• 2 Central government programmes are supportive of organic farming in Jharkhand

– The Mahila Kisan Shashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP), under the Ministry of Rural Development’s National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM), implemented by Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Society (JSLPS) and some NGOs

– The Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY), under the Ministry of Agriculture’s National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA), promotes Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) model for organic certification

• Some 181 PGS groups formed in Jharkhand till earlier this year, the majority having 50 members (in total around 9,000 farmers)

• All PGS groups registered with ‘Regional Councils’ from other states

• As yet, Jharkhand does not have even one regional council

Nascent organic movement-Jharkhand

• Though Ministry of Agriculture supports PKVY, main thrust of its work is still the promotion of ‘modern/conventional’ farming, e.g. Bringing the Green Revolution to Eastern India (BGREI) programme

• Jharkhand has a Central Integrated Pest Management Centre (one of 35 in India) with a mandate to conduct Farmers Field Schools (FFSs) to sensitize farmers on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, and safe and judicious use of chemical pesticides as a last resort as per approved labels and leaflets

– However, no evidence of work on ground

• 1-year Diploma in Agricultural Extension Services for Input Dealers (DAESI) Program in several Indian states

– Covered 250 of about 900 registered dealers in Jharkhand, since 2014-15

– Course content of programme includes 4 modules on pest management, but no info on safety equipment to be used, approved uses, waiting periods, etc

– Course attended by just one family member of business…

Concluding remarks

Connection with hunger and malnutrition and political ecological approach:

“Implementing the right to adequate food and health requires proactive measures

to eliminate harmful pesticides” (para 103, Special Rapporteur)

“Efforts to tackle hazardous pesticides will only be successful if they address the ecological, economic and social factors that are embedded in agricultural policies, as articulated in the Sustainable Development Goals. Political will is needed to re-evaluate and challenge the vested interests, incentives and power relations that keep industrial agrochemical-dependent farming in place” (para 105)

Finally the Special Rapporteur recommends that the international community, nation states, and civil society take actions to change policies that favour pesticide industry, promote agro-ecology etc (paras 106, 107, 108)

References

• A people’s food policy. Transforming our food system. 2017. https://www.peoplesfoodpolicy.org

• 2017. Hill, J. 2017. Agrarian crisis in Jharkhand: Results of a farmer survey. Ranchi: BIRSA MMC.

• Hill, J., Singh, S., Ranjan, P., Nishant (2018). Misuse of chemical pesticides in Jharkhand: What should be done? Ranchi: Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development (SPWD), Eastern Region Office.

• Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. 2017. United Nations General Assembly A/HRC/34/48. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/Annual.aspx

• Sachs, W. The sustainable development goals and Laudato si’: varieties of post-development? Third World Quarterly, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2017.1350822

• The United Nations Human Rights. Office of the High Commission. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23881&LangID=E

• WHO. 2017. World health statistics 2017: Monitoring health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva: World Health Organisation. http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2017/en/