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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment