Scott H. DeLisi, the US ambassador to Nepal, wrote and posted an interesting article on his Facebook page. Here's the article.
There has been
considerable discussion of late about US agricultural development
strategy in Nepal, Monsanto, and hybrid seeds. I'd like to set the
record straight. Before addressing the specifics, however, I would like
to highlight our strongly held belief that the critical discussion is
not about the role of a single company but about the future of
agricultural development in Nepal. If anything, the recent debates
about Monsanto have led me to believe that what is truly needed is a
carefully considered, fact-based policy dialogue among agriculturalists,
agronomists, government officials and all other stakeholders on the
best course for this nation, as a food-deficit country, when it comes to
addressing the fundamental issues of food security and improved
livelihoods for farmers across the nation.
Regarding our policy,
let me begin by emphasizing that President Obama's Feed the Future
initiative in Nepal reflects a determined commitment on the part of the
US Government to work with the Government and people of Nepal on the
vital issues of food security and agricultural development. That will
not change.
Secondly, let me be equally clear that ours is a
partnership that supports the vision and direction of the Government of
Nepal. To be successful, we believe that our programs must have
government engagement and commitment and reflect governmental
priorities. Without the Government of Nepal's support for the proposal
that Monsanto will provide assistance and agricultural extension
services to farmers using hybrid seeds, USAID will not move forward
independently to fund such a program. If the government decides that
such an educational partnership is desirable, however, we will be
prepared to move forward with a well-designed and carefully considered
program.
I also want to emphasize, however, that while looking at
seed technology to enhance agricultural productivity is important, it is
only a small component of our food security partnership with the
government. We are supporting organic production, working with farmers
on irrigation techniques, better nursery programs for seedlings, and
better insect control. We are, for example, working with farmers in the
mid-hills on diversifcation of crop production to show them that
instead of making 5,000 rupees from a half hectare of maize in monsoon
season they can generate 130,000 rupees from best-practice irrigated
vegetable farming during the same period. My request and my intent is
to keep our discussion focused on what makes sense for Nepal's
development, for farmers' livelihoods, for the economy and for the
future and to not let it be diverted by those for whom focusing on a
single company is more important than addressing Nepal's food security
concerns or long-term agricultural development strategies.
With
that in mind, let me try to frame as cleary as possible the focus of our
efforts as well as the reasons we're puzzled by some of the issues
being raised. First, I have urged before, and I emphasize again, the
importance of being clear about the true issues we are discussing.
Yesterday there was yet another op-ed that spoke about "GMO" maize. I
am not aware of any GMO maize being grown in Nepal not has it been
approved by the government, nor are there any proposals on the part of
USAID or anyone else that I know to introduce it. This careless use of
terminology only clouds the issues. There are very important
differences between hybrids and GMO seeds and, although there can and
should be dialogue about both, we need to be clear about what we are
talking about.
I have also seen many Facebook posts and press
statements that talk about "stopping" the introduction of hybrid maize
into Nepal. There was another such statement today. These statements
puzzle me, however, as they seem to ignore the current realities in
agriculture here in Nepal. The Government of Nepal began researching
the use of hybrid seed varieties in 1987 and today, approximately 75% of
tomatoes, cauliflower, and many other vegetables in Nepal are grown
from hybrid seed. The Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) has
also approved sixteen maize hybrids for sale in Nepal. Many of the
approved varieties come from Monsanto, and four of them have been sold
commercially here since 2004.
It is also worth nothing that 80% of
mazie produced in the Terai is grown from hybrid seed and 10% of maize
grown in the mid hills is also from hybrid seed. It is also the case
that Nepal's maize production falls far short of demand and the nation
imports tremendous quantities of maize (primarily hybrid varieties grown
in India) each year at considerable expense to the national budget.
Thus, if the goal of the debate is to "stop" the introduction of
hybrids, it would seem that there is need for further education on the
current agricultural realities and practices by the nation's farmers.
If the goal is instead to limit the further
spread
of hybrid use, then there clearly is need for further discussion as
well, given that every year the use of hybrid seed in Nepal is growing,
with seed availability not keeping pace with demand. This, I would add,
is also a problem, as it leads to black market seed being introduced,
not all of which is NARC-approved varieties that are tailored to Nepal's
climate, soil and agricultural environment.
Several American and
Indian companies sell the approved hybrid seed varieties in Nepal in
response to the current - and increasing - market demand for them.
There are also discussions of Nepali companies either developing their
own hybrid lines or acquiring rights from companies like Monsanto for
the parental lines of currently used hybrids. As noted earlier,
however, I believe that those who want to focus the discussion to either
a single company, or to the commercial hybrid seed providers in
general, miss the key concern. What is important is that decision
makers and stakeholders bring the focus of the debate back to the core
question: the appropriate role of hybrids as part of a comprehensive
strategy for Nepal's agricultural development. To single out Monsanto,
or any other company, serves no useful purpose in this discussion and
distracts from the critical issues to be addressed.
The simple
fact is that Nepal's agricultural productivity across the board is low -
very low. Meanwhile, the population is growing, while the amount of
arable land is at best static but may be decreasing due to
urbanization. This imbalance puts the food security of the entire
nation in jeopardy. Malnutrition and under nutrition remain serious
problems, undermining the health and affecting the future of Nepali
children. In my view, these are issues that must be discussed soberly
and carefully. These are the issues we want to work with the people and
the government to address.
There are those who also argued
against hybrids on the grounds that they lead to a massive increase in
the use of chemical fertilizer. Although I am not an expert, I have
learned enough to know that there are many different views on that
topic, even if not all of them are getting broad exposure in the current
public discussion. I would urge that there be a more informed
examination of all the issues, bearing in mind that the debate about
fertilizer is not unique to the use of hybrid seed varieties. The use
of fertilizer, deemed by so many of this nation's farmers to be an
essential input for increased production, is just as much a factor in
the production of open pollinated variety (OPV) maize as it is in hybrid
production. Equally, despite suggestions by some to the contrary,
hybrid seed varieties can be grown organically, can be fertilized with
cow manure rather than chemicals, and will still produce increased
yeilds compared to many OPV seeds.
When looking at the discussion
to date, I also feel a degree of concern that it does not seem to
reflect the views we hear expressed by the farmers who work the fields.
For example, we know there are over 20,000 farmers in the Terai and the
mid-hills who are eager to either expand their use of hybrids or
participate in a trial in which Monsanto would provide agricultural
extension services, education and other support. Their voices need to
count in this debate as well. We also know that hybrid use is a reality
in Nepal and is growing each year. The farmers who are making the
choice to use hybrids and who depend on those crops for their livelihood
need to be part of this discussion. If Nepali agriculture practice is
indeed moving towards the increased use of hybrids, then it is important
to ensure that the best agricultural practices are used and that
farmers have the support and training they tell us they want and need to
use hybrid seeds effectively.
Although I believe there are many
related issues that warrant discussion by and among Nepalis as you shape
your agricultural future, I again urge that, as you do so, you seek to
separate fact from fiction. Hear ALL sides of the discussion and
recognize that there are many views and competing considerations. For
example, there are those who repeatedly posit as absolute fact that the
maize crop failures in 2009 were due to hybrid seeds. There are
experts, however, including in the Government of Nepal, who will tell
you that the problem was a weather-related issue (extreme cold) that
affected OPV maize as well as hybrid.
Other opponents of hybrid
seeds argue that hybrids encourage dependence and are part of a new form
of economic imperialism by the developed world. I disagree, but at the
end of the day what I believe is not important. Nepalis must make that
decision for themselves. I urge, however, that you listen not just to
the foes but that you give just as much consideration to the voice of
the farmer who argues that greater productivity and increased incomes
stemming from hybrid use can improve his life and the future of his
children while transforming agriculture in Nepal.
The bottom
line? Let facts, not conjecture, emotion or misinformation, inform this
important debate. Encourage a robust public discussion with experts on
agriculture as well as the farmers who would be the most affected by
the decisions, and be wary of any voices that offer only one side of the
issue.
Finally, I would add that these issues are not unique to
Nepal. Weigh the evidence and recommendations of the many experts who
have discussed these same concerns as part of the global debate on food
security. We all must come to terms with the inevitable tensions
between balancing many competing concerns as the global community
struggles with the question of how to feed an ever-growing world
population with diminishing agricultural resources. This is one of the
true challenges of our generation.
Our partnership with Nepal in
development is now 60 years old. It has been driven in part by our
sincere commitment to helping your government to meet the health and
nutritional needs of the population so that your citizens will be better
able to build a prosperous and democratic future for Nepal. That
commitment and partnership will not change whatever course you and your
government choose in terms of the nation's agricultural development.
But I do believe that these issues have too long been neglected in the
public discourse. I hope that the discussion we have seen in recent
weeks can, and will, evolve into a much-needed examination of the
broader questions to be answered for the future of agricultural
development in Nepal.
To comment on his write-up in Facebook and see the discussion that's going on there, please click here.
