During the Third G-20 Ministerial in Delhi on 18th and 19th March 2005, we, the representatives of the farmer unions met you in Delhi and presented a resolution passed at the National Level Farmers Rally in Kisan Ghat in Delhi against the WTO, the G-20 and the anti farmer policies of the Indian Government. During that meeting you asked us to give Indian farmers_ response to the G-20’s Delhi declaration passed at the G-20 Ministerial in Delhi.
Here is our Response to the G-20 Delhi Declaration.
We went through very minutely the Delhi Declaration and found that in the outset it accepts the fact that agriculture is critical area of concern for all the developing and least developed countries. It also accepts that the developed countries follow trade-distorting policies in agriculture and there is a need to end this distortion to allow developing countries to integrate in the world trading system.
We also noticed that the G-20 is quite concerned about completing the negotiations on Agreement on Agriculture by 2006. The Declaration also specified that the _first approximation_ of the modalities will be ready by July 2005 and full modalities on agriculture (which, we believe, include – percentages for tariff and subsidy cuts, reduction formulae, criteria for domestic support, schedules, deadlines, and transition periods) will be achieved by December 2005 at the 6th Ministerial Conference.
On Cotton, the Delhi Declaration applauds the Appellate Body decision against the US for providing subsidies to its cotton growers, which has led to a drastic negative effect on the developing countries. The World Trade Organisation dispute panel confirmed in April 2004 that the subsidies of $12.5bn was given to the US cotton growers between 1999 and 2002 which boosted US exports and but it depressed prices at the expense of Brazilian and other producers. The WTO panel condemned not only direct cotton subsidies but US export credit guarantee programmes benefiting other commodities, which the US says total $3.5bn per year. The WTO Dispute panel also considered these to be subsidies and gave the US until July 1st, 2005 to withdraw them.
Despite the Dispute Panel ruling, the US has not yet withdrawn subsidies to its cotton farmers as well as other export credit guarantees programme benefiting other commodities. The excessive subsidies by the US for cotton has led to decline in international cotton prices which affect the cotton farmers not only in African countries but in India too. What plans does the G-20 have to force US to accept the Dispute Panel ruling and withdraw its subsidies to cotton growers? Furthermore, despite requests by West African cotton producing countries that cotton subsidies be treated as a separate issue, the US is maintaining its position that it be subsumed under the general AoA negotiations, thus indicating that the US has no intention of reducing its subsidies unless it gains market access in other areas. What is India_s and the G-20_s response to this?
into Blue Box. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports in its review of US agricultural policy, _In 2004, a six fold increase in payments under the marketing loan and counter-cyclical programmes was triggered by lower prices which directly contradicted Doha objectives. Despite this, US tried to legitimize this increase.
Does the G-20 has any plan to counter the developed countries tactics of shifting farm subsidies from one box to another. If Blue Box expansion results in greater trade distortion and the U.S. succeeds in imposing the expanded Blue Box on the rest of the WTO members, what can the G20 do to counter this reversal of trade reforms. If this trend continues then is there any relief to the farmers in the third world / developing countries who would continue to perish due to non-remunerative agriculture prices triggered by the huge subsidies in the form of domestic support given by the developed countries to their farmers?
The Delhi Declaration says that the Green Box should accommodate development programmes in developing countries and the developing countries should not be required to reduce ‘de minimis’ support.
In the developing countries the de-minimis threshold is 10 percent but there is hardly any third world country which provides a domestic support under the Green Box even upto its fixed threshold limit. We would like to know from you what percentage of the de-minimis support is given to the Indian farmers and how it is benefiting them and to what extent.
A country like India which was providing domestic support of about 7% and it was much within the reduction commitment for developing countries has further reduced its domestic support to the farmers, and presently India is giving only 4.5% of the domestic support to agriculture which in fact are not given to the farmers directly but to the input industry producing fertilizers and pesticides. In any case, India provides only $1 billion worth of indirect subsidies to approximately 550 billion farmers. The Indian farmers do not have any sort of protection from the distorting trade practices followed by the developed countries, neither do we have any safeguard mechanism in place to protect our farmers from cheap imports, and our tariff structure is quite low, nor are we protected from the aggravation in the decline of international prices of the agriculture commodities. Will the Indian government, in order to protect its farmers, reinstate quantitative restriction which would provide a safety net to us from increasing surge in imports, the resultant decline in domestic prices and reduction in number of farmers suicides? On Export Subsidies, the Delhi Declaration calls for an "immediate standstill commitment on all forms of export subsidies." The EU has recently reintroduced export subsidies on wheat. The declaration further says export subsidies should be eliminated within five years, with significant reductions to come sooner rather than later. Though the G-20 has set a very optimistic goal but the implementing countries are mostly first world countries.
Despite the WTO Doha commitment, these countries keep on increasing their export subsidies, hence going against the spirit of the development agenda.
The recent report by the OECD called Agricultural Outlook says that the global competition among exporters of wheat, rice, oilseeds, sugar and livestock is expected to intensify over the next ten years among both developed and developing countries. We, the farmers unions, believe that this will lead to further increase in export subsidies by the developed countries to capture the world agriculture market.
Our hope to achieve something at the General Council Meeting at Geneva and the Mini Ministerial in Dalian China, did not produce any productive results for the developing countries, though the Co-chairs_ summary of Dalian says that that there is a necessary minimum structure on the export competition pillar already in place. Even the new World Bank President, Paul Wolfowitz has said that phasing out agricultural subsidies in rich nations would be an important part of tackling poverty in the world’s poorest ones. He said that poor farmers lose their opportunities to become self-sufficient because of subsidies and market barriers. According to Wolfowitz, subsidies cost taxpayers and consumers more than USD $200 billion a year. We have argued at several occasions that the farmer producers in the developing countries including India are perishing because they are facing imports whose prices are depressed because of export subsidies and we are faced with a very unfair competition. For example EU provides subsides of about 1.7 billion euros a year on dairy products which affected the dairy farmers in India and other third world countries. EU exports in diary make up about 50% of what is traded on the world market. European subsidies on their diary producers are up to 87% of the world price of the milk powder. Similarly US is depressing world prices of major food crops. The US 2002 Farm Bill which promised farmers at least US $190 billion over ten years, concentrated on eight areas _ cotton, what, corn, soybean, rice, barley, oats and sorghum, all of which are important food crops for the developing countries and are closely linked to food security and rural employment in the South. The small and marginal farmers of the South are expected to compete with the highly `subsidies farmers of the developed world_. The developed countries will continue to spend large amounts on export subsidies while developing countries cannot because they lack money to provide export subsidies, even if they are put under the category of those countries which have been originally subsidizing exports. Therefore we demand that all developed countries_ must remove all their export subsidies with immediate effect.
It is now evident that despite a formal structure for the reduction of export subsidies, the developed countries, instead of eliminating, are increasing these subsidies as recently in the case of Wheat by the EU. We would therefore like to ask the G-20 ministers including you that how long we would wait for the developed countries to eliminate their export subsidies? On Market Access, the G-20 Declaration notes the importance of a transparent process for conversion of ‘specific’ agricultural tariffs based on quantities into ‘ad valorem’ equivalents (AVEs), i.e. tariffs based upon the price of the product. The tariffs should remain ad valorem, rather than be converted back to specific tariffs. As for the tariff reduction formula, the Delhi Declaration emphasises three issues: progressivity, meaning higher tariffs should face deeper cuts; proportionality, that is, developing countries should have to make smaller cuts; and flexibility to address certain sensitivities without undermining the objective of substantial market access improvement. According to the latest information from Dalian we have, the EC has accepted the G-20 market access proposal, and also the US seems to have indicated that it is happy to go in this direction, although it seems to want to make sure that there is still sufficient market access. The G-33 is supporting this proposal. The G-20, proposal proposes five bands for developed countries with the argument that their tariff structures have very high peaks in some tariffs and four bands for developing countries. In each of these bands a linear formula of tariff reductions will be negotiated. This means that for e.g., in the highest bands all tariffs that fall into this band will be reduced by a percentage x (e.g. 50%), for the second band another percentage etc. So the proposed formula is something between Swiss formula and Uruguay Round formula. However, we, the farmers_ unions have noticed that the market access in the developed countries is hampered by their maintaining a high tariffs on the products of interest to the developing countries besides a plethora of non-tariff barriers. Tariff peaks continue to block exports from developing countries to the first world. For instance, the US, EU, Japan and Canada maintain tariff peaks of 350 to 900 per cent on food products such as sugar, rice, dairy products, meat, fruits, vegetables and fish. Further, the developed world are also using Special Safeguard measures (SSG) to restrict imports from developing countries _ Canada reserves the right to use SSG for 150 tariff lines, the EU for 539 tariff lines, Japan for 121 tariff lines, the US for 189 tariff lines and Switzerland for 961 tariff lines. On the other hand only 22 developing countries can use SSG.
Moreover, the developed countries have evolved a clone of the QR system in the form of Tariff Rate Quota_s (TRQ_s), which would further hamper agricultural exports from developing countries to the developed world. Though the Delhi Declaration addresses the concern of the tariff escalation, tariff escalation continues to block exports of value added products from developing countries to the developed world. Stringent Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary measures continue to be a major barrier in diversifying exports. In case of surge of imports, according to our understanding, India is not entitled to use the Special Safeguard Mechanisms since it is only available to those countries which has tariffed their quantitative restrictions. Hence we are very vulnerable to the surge in agriculture imports and that is the reason our farmers are committing suicides because the excessive imports of agriculture commodities have led to the lowering of farm prices and farmers are not able to recover their principal production costs. What Mechanism does India have to protect its farmers from surges of cheap imports? Even the bound tariffs of some of the key commodities which are coming from developed countries are so low (for e.g., soyabean oil) that surge of imports has led to crushing down of the respective industry in India (in the case of soyabean, the oilseeds industry in the country is completely destroyed). Can India increase the bound tariffs as well as applied tariffs of those items which are being dumped in India and causing decline in domestic prices of these products? We also demand that India fix the applied tariff as commensurate to the bound tariff of all the products, e.g. all cereals at 100%, all processed foods at 150% and all oilseeds at 300%. We also demand that India must revisit at the bound tariffs of sensitive agriculture goods. When rich nations have their own version of QRs, which they call TRQs, why can_t poor nations also reinstate their QR_s system to protect their farmers and farming? We, the farmers_ unions have come to a conclusion that the fundamental problem lies in the framework of the Agreement on Agriculture. Through disciplines for its pillars, the AoA furthers and entrenches monopoly production in the hands of the world_s largest agriculture producers and exporters. While the EU and US are exerting enormous pressure on the developing world to agree to their framework for negotiations, they are not showing any firm commitments in reducing their levels of direct and indirect subsidies; instead, they expect the developing countries to concede important concessions in the areas of trade in non-agricultural goods as well as the services sector.
We firmly belief that the developing countries are in an unequal and disadvantaged negotiating position compared to the rich developed countries and all the recent proposals including the current proposals by the G-20 on Market Access to redress these power imbalances in agriculture trade will not protect small and marginal farmers, fishermen, workers, and economically vulnerable communities in their countries. In order to protect the interest of our farmers and agriculture, which is in deep distress, the Indian Government must take immediate measures to remove food and agriculture from the WTO_s control. Other Crucial Issues
There are several other policy decisions which the Indian government has taken in the recent past which would even otherwise drastically affect the Indian farmers and make Indian agriculture non-remunerative. Some of these policy decisions are being taken on the pretext that they are WTO obligatory though they have nothing to do with the India_s obligations in WTO. Corporatisation of agriculture leading to Increasing Farmers Suicide in India
Across the country our brethren farmers are taking the desperate step of ending their lives because of the new pressures building upon them as a result of globalisation and corporate takeover leading to the spread of capital-intensive conventional agriculture. The lure of huge profits linked with smart advertising strategies evolved by the seeds and chemical industries and easy credit for purchase of costly inputs is forcing our farmers into a chemical and biological treadmill and a debt trap. But the reality of globalisation is different from the corporate propaganda and from the promises of trade liberalisation and agriculture offered by the World Bank, the WTO and experts and economists sitting in our various ministries.
The impacts of trade liberalisation and globalisation have been felt in each and every state with the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Punjab bearing the maximum burden in terms of the high social and ecological costs in terms of farmers paying for globalisation by being forced to sacrifice their lives and livelihoods.
The burden of the deep agrarian distress caused by the increasing costs of production and declining domestic farm prices due to the increased dumping and declining international farm prices has fallen on the small and marginal farmers of this country. This has led to a spurt in the numbers of suicides committed by farmers in rural India.
Unlike the series of suicides in 1987-88, 1997-98 and 2000, when peasants growing particular crops such as tobacco, cotton, chillies and groundnut were ruined, now farmers_ suicides are widespread. No crop appears safe and no section of the small peasantry appears insulated or protected. The overwhelming proportions of the death toll is among small and marginal farmers and tenant cultivators, who have no claims on the land they cultivate and who pay exorbitant rents to the landlords.
In one month between May 14 and June 14 2004, according to the Andhra Pradesh Ryothu Sangam (APRS), 279 peasants committed suicide after the Congress government assumed office in the Centre and in Andhra Pradesh; however the Andhra Pradesh State Government has put the figure at 194. Sixty-five farmers in the Vidharbha region of Maharashtra have taken their lives in 2004 over debts as little as Rs. 8000, because when it does not rain and where proper irrigation facilities do not exist, these small amounts crush hope and with it, they crush life. Since 2001, about 340 farmers have committed suicide in the region of Vidharbha. About 478 farmers in Karnataka have committed suicide between April to November 2003.
This epidemic of farmers’ suicide is the real barometer of the stress under which Indian agriculture and Indian farmers have been put by globalisation of agriculture. Growing indebtedness and increasing crop failure are the main reasons that the farmers have committed suicide across the length and breath of rural India. Indebtedness and crop failure are also inevitable outcomes of the corporate model of industrial agriculture being introduced in India through globalisation. While the benefits of globalisation go to the seeds and chemical corporations through expanding markets, the cost and risks are exclusively born by the small farmers and landless peasants. Deep in debt, following periodic losses suffered because of poor crops yields and low prices, farmers have even sold their body parts including their kidneys. Highest number of such cases has been reported from Rebitachintala Mandal in the Palamdu area in Andhra Pradesh. Agriculture driven by MNC’s is capital intensive and creates heavy debt for purchase of costly inputs such as seeds and agri-chemicals. It is also ecologically vulnerable since the MNC_s driven agriculture is based on monoculture of introduced varieties and on non-sustainable practices of chemically intensive farming. Several agricultural commodities have seen a fall in the prices in the last three years owing to imports. The lifting of agricultural and power subsidies have pushed up the cost of cultivation substantially and the withdrawal of safety nets like the universal public distribution system for food has increased expenditures or poor families.
The mass suicides that have started to occur in India after trade liberalization policies were introduced in
agriculture are the direct results of the distortions and deceit built into the international trade in agriculture. The Korean Farmer Lee who committed suicide in Cancun had said _WTO kills farmers_.
The Indian government must assert our unqualified right to impose quantitative restrictions to save our farmers. Farmers_ suicide is a national security emergency and our government, while negotiating in the WTO on AoA, must negotiate keeping in view the increasing farmers suicides. The lives of farmers come first, not the profits of the global agribusiness corporations. Democracy comes first, not the manipulated undemocratic rules of a failing agency like WTO. Seeds Bill, 2004
A important policy decision taken by the Indian government on the name of _WTO Compliance_ is the introduction of the Seed Bill 2004 which does not offer anything to Indian farmers and instead provides complete control over seeds to the multinational corporations. Indian farming community was taken for a ride with the introduction of the Seed Bill Act 2004 on grounds that the draft Act is needed to guarantee seed quality. However the Seed Act 1966 already performs the function of seed testing and seed certification. There is nothing in the WTO, which provides for compulsory seed registration and this bill is mainly to establish MNCs control over our seeds. The MNC_s agenda to establish a monopolistic patent regime and corporate monopoly over seeds is not possible as long as farmers have their alternative source of zero cost, reliable, time tested, high value seeds of their traditional varieties of indigenous agro-biodiversity. The Seed Bill 2004 has only one objective and that is stopping our farmers from seed saving, seed exchange and seed reproduction. Even the objective of the Bill blatantly declares that the bill is aimed at _replacing farmer saved seeds with seeds from private seed industries_. The repeated reference to _barter_ in the Bill will prevent farmer_s seed exchange, a necessary aspect of maintaining high quality seed supply at the community level. The compulsory registration of seed combined with the power of seed inspectors to enter and search our premises (which now mean our huts and fields), the power to break open any container and any door is tantamount to creating a _Seed Police_ to terrorize us for conserving biodiversity and practicing a sovereign self-reliant agriculture. The first time fine for seed exchange and barter of unregistered seed is upto Rs. 25000. While criminalizing our farmers who consume biodiversity and traditional varieties, the draft Seed Act fails to do one thing it should have done, that is to regulate and hold liable the seed industry and seed corporations for seed failure and genetic contamination from GMO_s.
In the new Seed Bill farmers can only claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act. This option is in any way available to farmers. The power of the Central Authority, which acts to prevent farmers from growing own seeds, provides no safety and remedy to farmers from untested and hazardous seeds MNCs are selling in the Indian market. The 2004 Seed Bill has nothing positive to offer to us but offer a promise of a monopoly to the private seed industry, which has already pushed thousands of our farmers to suicide through dependency and debt caused by unreliable, high dependency and non-renewable seeds.
Even today, 70% of the total seeds used in Indian agriculture is the farmers_ own varieties, which have been saved, exchanged and reproduced freely and have guaranteed our food security. Farmers_ own indigenous varieties are the basis of our ecological and food security. Our ancestors have evolved thousands of varieties of farm tested ecologically adaptable seeds of every crop, which never fails us. The draft Seed Act is designed to _enclose_ the free economy of farmers_ seed varieties. Once farmers_ seed supply is destroyed through compulsory registration by making it illegal to plant unlicensed varieties, farmers are pushed into dependency on corporate monopoly of patented seeds. It is often stated that IPRs will not stop traditional farmers using native seeds. However, the Seed Bill 2004 is designed to do just that. What the seeds MNCs cannot have achieved through the IPR laws are now easily possible through the Seeds Bill which prevent our farmers from using their own _non-patented_ saved seeds. Food Safety and Standards Bill 2005
The Indian government, in order to make our food laws WTO compliant, has introduced the Food Safety and Standards Bill 2005 as an _Integrated Food Law_. This Bill has been prepared with the intention to ensure better consumer safety through food safety management systems and setting food standards based on science and transparency. Consumer health, nutrition and food culture are not even mentioned as objectives of the integrated food law and the proposed law is clearly designed to lubricate international trade and the expansion of the global agribusiness. But the integrated food safety bill will lead to dismantling of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA). It is in effect the legalizing of adulteration of our entire food system with toxic chemicals and industrial processing. We need stronger food safety laws, especially in the context of toxics in food and the introduction of GMOs in food crops and imports of hazardous foods. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act needs to be strengthened, not substituted by the proposed law, as proposed in the new bill. The new food law is being shaped to de-regulate large corporations and over-regulate the small-scale self organized food culture on our country. Such industrial food safety standards promote large-scale globalised production, and act against local foods. These laws are also the basis of the Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary Agreement of WTO. Our own food standards are cultural, based on indigenous science and community control not industrial _science_ and controlled by central government manipulated by food giants like Cargill, ConAgra, Lever, Nestle, Phillip Morris and gene giants like Monsanto, Syngenta, Novartis etc. Our kitchens and dhabas, our cottage and household industry is being put in the same category as Nestle_s, Cargills and ConAgra_s massive super industrial processing. Domestic and local consumption, including _not for profit_ food provisioning is being put in the same category as imports of hazardous GMOs. This is an obsolete, corrupt crude and coercive system proposed by corporations to destroy 99% of our indigenous food processing so that global agribusiness MNCs control our entire food economy and destroy millions of livelihoods. It will destroy our food freedom, livelihoods, our food safety and our food diversity. Our indigenous _Methi Ka Sag and Makki Ki Roti_ have no international standards, they need indigenous standards. India must evolve her laws for her conditions. One law for all food systems is a law that privileges large-scale industrial commercial establishments and discriminates and criminalizes our small, local, diverse food outlets and culture. Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee Act (APMC ACT)
In order to further liberalise the agriculture marketing in India, the Indian government has brought amendment in the Agriculture Produce Marketing Act (APMC Act). The Union Agriculture Ministry has issued directions to all states to amend their APMC Act so as to bring private investment and promote alternative competitive marketing structure. The most significant changes in the marketing law is the removal of regulation of MNC_s for location of purchase, price and volume of agricultural commodities. The amendment in the Marketing Act are designed to remove legal instruments for preventing farmer_s exploitation. In affect, the model Act is an Act to legalize exploitation by removing all regulation on price and volume of purchase. By having many traders, and a ceiling on volume traded, monopolies could not emerge in mandis. The model Act promotes the creation of monopolistic buying by agribusiness. Giant corporations like Cargill, ConAgra and ITC can now set up private markets, not regulated by the market committee.
This is a recipe for destroying local markets, and through market destruction, destroying local production. India produces thousands of crops on millions of farms while agribusiness trades in a handful of commodities. Their monopoly on our markets implies destruction of diversity and displacement of small producers and traders because they would buy only those produce they can trade internationally. The Model Act also puts a complete ban on civil suits by the aggrieved party/farmers. It clearly says that no court can take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rule or any bye-laws made there under except on the complaint made by the collector or chairman, vice chairman, chief executive officer of the market committee of the private mandies (market) or of any person duly authorized by the market committee in this behalf. In other words, the farmers are disenfranchised of all legal, civil rights. This is corporate dictatorship, implemented by a corporate state. Several states have already amended their APMC Act and farmers in those states are facing acute problems because the buying agencies are not implementing the Minimum Support Price (MSP) declared by the central government for agricultural produce and farmers are being forced to sell their produce at a cheap price which does not even cover their cost of production. This will lead to more suicides since the farm prices are already very low in India due to excessive subsidized dumping of agriculture products from developed world. Contract Farming
The new APMC Act has contract farming built into its structure. The Model Contract Farming Agreement refers to corporations as _contract farming sponsors. Contract oblige farmers to produce, but do not oblige corporations to buy. In case of a dispute, farmers cannot seek justice from courts. The government of India has issued notification to all the sate agriculture departments and state agriculture universities to promote and encourage contract farming. Several State government including Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Punjab and Tamil Nadu are actively promoting contract farming, changing laws to enable and support it, and providing companies interested in it with a variety of incentives, including lifting of land ceilings, subsidies and tax rebates. Dismantling Minimum Support Price System
Under the pressure from the World Bank and IMF to curtail subsidies, your government is thinking on he lines of stopping the minimum support price mechanisms. The minimum support price (MSP) is an imperative for farmers_ income security. MSP can not be done away with. It is the equivalent of minimum wages in non-agricultural sectors. Just as no just society can allow the super exploitation of workers through low wages, no society can allow the super exploitation of farmers through low and even negative returns on farming. Conclusion
The G-20 coalition is a welcome development politically. It was an impressive counterweight to the US and EU hegemony in Cancun, and has the potential to continue playing this critical role. But politically however, many in the G-20 group are vulnerable to US and EC pressures since most have some kind of preferential trading arrangement with the US (e.g. AGOA) or EC (eg. Cotonou) and are dependent on these powers for aid and loans. However, they have strength in numbers, and this saw them beating down the US and EC in Cancun.
The G-20 should keep its sights on bringing more equity to agriculture trade. It can only do this if it remains strong in terms of calling for an end to dumping and working with the G-90 to build a solid alliance, including ensuring no tariff reductions are undertaken, until such time US/EU dumping has been eliminated. Failure to come together as developing countries, and a weak or non-existent position on dumping/ subsidies (over and above _box-shifting_), will further entrench the current AoA paradigm, to the detriment of all developing countries, including those in the G-20. The deep crisis in Indian agriculture as well as in other developing countries is mainly caused by corporatisation of agriculture and WTO policies. WTO is the most visible symbol of these processes of globalization, marketisation and recolonisation. The process is being propelled by multinational corporations, constantly in search of space for expansion of their operation, seeking to transform the nations as their willing agents, totally ignoring the drasting implications on employment and survival of the vast multitude of people, creating a new culture of commoditization. All our expectations of rising international prices of agricultural products and increasing export, opportunities in the wake of the Agreements on Agriculture coming into force in 1995 have been belied. The recent trends by the Indian government to further the interest of the corporations to monopolise our agriculture markets, our inputs and our resources will further worsen our situation and will cause more farmers_ suicides. Trade liberalisation in agriculture and the corporate-friendly policies of the Indian government are already having disastrous effects on agriculture, which are visible in the form of increasing farmers_ suicides, exodus of farmers from rural areas to the cities, declining farm products and increasing costs of production.
In view of this only, one option is left with the Indian government in view of the failure to achieve anything at the WTO, and this is to simply REMOVE AGRICULTURE FROM THE WTO. Our farmers will be better off without our food and agriculture being dictated by the WTO. We demand from the G-20 counties that they work for removing agriculture from the WTO. This is the only viable options left with the developing world because of their failure to achieve the promised result though this failed institution. Signed by
Members of the Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements which include:
-Shri Mahender Singh Tikait,President,Bhartiya Kisan Union (Non-Political), Muzaffarnagar
-Shri Vijay Jawandhiya, Shetkari Sangathnna, Wardha
-Shri Yudhvir Singh, Bhartiya Kissan Union (Non-Political), Delhi
-Ms. Chukki Najundaswamy, Karnataka Rajya Ryots Sangha, Bangalore
-Shri Ajmer Singh Lokhowal, President, Bhartiya Kisan Union, Ludhyana
-Dr. Sunilam, Madhya Pradesh Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, Multaie
