Abstract
Cotton has always been one of the most important crops in India. In 2002–2003, a paradigm shift occurred in Indian cotton farming system after the introduction of genetically modified (GM) or Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton for commercial cultivation to control American Bollworm damage; that led to two major changes that paid off for Indian economy as tremendous growth of cotton production occurred between 2002 and 2012 which led to India’s relative share in global cotton production increasing from 13 per cent in the early 2000s to 23 per cent by 2012–2013. Though the other issues like increased use of pesticides, Bollworm resistance to Bt and high seed costs were associated with Bt cotton, yield plateaued nationally and farmer suicides increased in some areas recently. Economic viability of Bt cotton in Indian conditions and linkage of farmers’ poor situation to adoption of Bt cotton is still not clear. A large number of research studies have been carried out on the issue of impact of Bt cotton, but confusion remains. Thus, this book is timely as it provides comparative analysis of socio-economic impact of Bt cotton in India with before and after methodology. It consists of eight chapters including introduction and conclusion.
Chapter 1 sets context of the book by providing background of Bt cotton, current issues followed by the explanation of methodology used for this study. Cotton being one of the most important crops in India accounts for 4 per cent of GDP and is grown mainly in nine (now 10 including Odisha) states under three geographical zones engaging 6 million farmers. Average cotton yield in India is much lower as compared to other producing countries like China, Brazil, USA and Pakistan. Authors elaborate the introduction of Bt cotton in India during 2002–2003 for wider commercial cultivation. Bt was introduced by Monsanto and its Indian counterpart Mahyco. The main reason for the fast adoption of Bt cotton was protection against American Bollworm infestation which led to crop failure reduction and reduced chemical pesticide use. Average yield increased from 191 kg/ha in 2002–2003 to 517 kg/ha in 2010–2011 and export of cotton increased from eager 0.05 million bales to 8.8 million bales in 2008–2009. On other hand, different researchers and critics associated Bt cultivation with farmers’ suicides stating that cost of Bt seeds are much more higher than non-Bt seeds which eventually added up to the farmers’ miseries and low income. It is argued that not all the farmers who have adopted Bt were benefitted because of high degree of heterogeneity and factors like crop management, pest pressure and germplasm suitability etc. Based on all these research questions in background, the study was designed to assess the socio-economic impact of Bt cotton in India by comparing secondary and primary data, collected through field survey in 2011–2012 in cotton growing states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, for cost analysis, assessment of productivity and growth rates.
Second chapter discuss importance of cotton at global level, major producing countries, area under cotton, trends in average cotton yield, world cotton trade and India’s position on global map. It provides data of pre-Bt (1995–1996 to 2001–2002) and post-Bt period (2002–2003 to 2012). Although USA remained the largest exporter of cotton but India joined the major exporter list only after Bt introduction.
Chapter 3 focuses on the trends in area, production, yields, input uses and prices of cotton in India followed by brief discussion on cotton growing states, major varieties and upcoming varieties. In post-Bt cotton period, the growth rate of cotton area, production and yield increased to 4.91 per cent, 9.25 per cent and 4.15 per cent, respectively, but significant increase in instability was also observed which was from 8.71 per cent to 15.27 per cent in case of area, and from 18.74 per cent to 25.35 per cent in case of production. The main reason behind instability and stagnation was increased cultivation under rain-fed conditions and decline in irrigated area. In post-Bt cotton era, area under cotton significantly increased. Gujarat had the highest proportion (25 per cent) of gross irrigated area (GIA), with Surendranagar district having 60 per cent of its area as GIA because of adoption of micro-irrigation system whereas in other states (10 per cent for northern region; 5 per cent for southern and central region), it was relatively less. Trends in growth rates of cotton productivity in the pre- and post-Bt cotton have shown significant decrease in central and southern regions. Yield was also declining in spite of increasing area due to cultivation of cotton in marginal lands (shallow soils and erratic rainfall). Trends in cotton price have been fluctuating throughout; minimum support price (MSP) and farm harvest price (FHP) have increased with Punjab recording the highest FHP (₹4500/qtl) though, reasons of fluctuation have not been described. Trends in input usage in cotton are described in details. Fifty-four per cent of technical grade pesticides were consumed in cotton during 2006–2007, where Punjab and Haryana are recorded to have the highest consumption (0.85 kg/ha). A decline of 23.45 per cent has been observed in pesticide consumption between 2002–2003 and 2009–2010 in all the states. It was reported from field survey that with the introduction of Bt cotton, American Bollworm damage had declined but damage from other insects and pests was increased that might be another reason of lower yields and increasing use of insecticides gradually. Average consumption of fertilizer increased from 95 kg/ha in pre-Bt cotton to 120 kg/ha in post-Bt cotton period with growth rate of 8.52 per cent. Seed usage declined from 9.23 kg/ha in pre-Bt period to 6 kg/ha in post-Bt period. As per field survey, average Bt seed usage is around 2 kg/ha though seed usage also depends on factors like variety, its growth behaviour, soil fertility and production practices. The seed usage was found to be higher in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu as compared to other states because of equal proportion of Bt and non-Bt cotton area. Average seed cost is increased from ₹650/kg in 2005–2006 to ₹1,239 in 2008–2009. Average irrigation cost increased from ₹355/ha to ₹813/ha in post-Bt cotton period mainly due to increased diesel cost. Total cost assigned to human labour cost was 25–50 per cent; human labour use increased from 96 mandays/ha to 104 mandays/ha. Cost of machine labour increased from ₹732.06/ha in the pre-Bt cotton period to ₹1,408/ha in the post-Bt cotton period.
In fourth chapter, socio-economic analysis of Bt cotton cultivation is reported based on primary data obtained from field survey. Most of the cotton farmers were small (53.71 per cent) and medium (36.76 per cent). The proportion of area under Bt cotton was 98.90 per cent, and as per the field survey, cotton is sold above MSP except in Tamil Nadu. Most of the Bt cotton was grown in rain-fed condition (55.59 per cent) with Madhya Pradesh having the highest area share of 98.08 per cent. According to field survey, average working capital cost of Bt cotton cultivation in India was estimated to be ₹29,496.78/ha, Gujarat having the highest (₹35,184.30/hac) and Rajasthan having the lowest (₹22,034/ha) because of difference in the cost of fertilizer and farm yard manure. The average gross return from Bt cotton was ₹94,804.60/ha, with Hanumangarh district recording the highest (₹132,981.41/ha) in Rajasthan, Surendernagar (₹138,412.19/ha) in Gujarat and Warangal (₹145,887.32/hac) in Andhra Pradesh. Moreover, data on average returns per hectare from Bt cotton was recorded to be ₹65,307.82/ha showing positive impact of Bt cotton on farmers. Chapter 5 provides details on different factors influencing Bt cotton yields, in which effect of different input on Bt cotton productivity (independent factor) is analyzed on different significance levels and it varied with districts (geo-locality) of cotton cultivating area. Low availability of good quality Bt cotton seeds, improper crop management and farming practices, improper application of growth regulator and farm yard manure, and improper methods of mechanization were responsible for adversely affecting cotton productivity.
Chapter 6 documents the farmers’ perception on impact of Bt cotton on expenses, yield, returns, suicides, human and livestock health, soil quality and environment based on field survey. In addition to that, it also explains farmers’ notion on labour and credit issues, influence of weather on Bt cotton and so on. Most of the farmers said that yield and net returns of Bt cotton were higher as compared to non-Bt cotton. Seed dealers and co-farmers were the major source of information about Bt cotton. Ninety-three per cent of the farmers reported that the expenditure on Bt cotton seeds was higher than non-Bt seeds, even though the seed usage per hectare was lower. Problem of spurious seeds was also reported by a few farmers (4 per cent), whereas the proportion was a little higher in case of Gujarat (21 per cent). Most of the farmers (85 per cent) did not plant ‘Refugia’ (non-Bt cotton crop) to get higher returns, and small farmers were taking more risk by devoting entire area to Bt cotton for maximum benefits. Mixed opinion came from different regions in case of fertilizer usage for Bt and non-Bt cotton. More than 75 per cent of the farmers gave an account of reduction in pesticide usage as well as expenditure on pesticide for Bt cotton. However, farmers in Hanumangarh, Rajasthan (63 per cent), Yavatmal, Maharashtra (90 per cent) and Virudnagar, Tamil Nadu (79 per cent) reported an increase in pesticide usage and increase in expenses for pesticides. Major reasons of farmers’ suicide were weather vagaries, low rain fall, low and fluctuating cotton prices, and unavailability of credit on time. The proportion of farmers taking credit from noninstitutional sources was higher than farmers taking credit from institutional sources. Labour shortage problems were reported by 83 per cent farmers, the main cause said to be absorption of labour by MGNREGS because of which labour cost has also been increasing over the years. In all the cotton-growing states the improvement in livelihoods was seen except Yavatmal, Maharashtra. Less than 10 per cent farmers in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh communicated about health issues on their family members and livestocks. Small proportion of farmers (10 per cent) in each state outlined soil health problems (increased salinity and alkalinity) due to Bt cotton. In Chapter 7, impact of Bt cotton on labour is examined by focusing on employment and income of landless labourers. Most of the labours are employed in cotton picking, and increased yield leads to increased use of labour. The study estimates that male labour wages in absolute terms were higher than female labour wages, and wages gap increased slightly in post-Bt period. Expenditure increased on livelihood activities, major proportion being for education of children and nutritious food. This is the new aspect of Bt cotton impact this study has examined and is a great value addition.
The key findings of this study are summarized in the last chapter. While concluding the book, the authors emphasize the need to have a more balanced view of the technology. The book has drawn attention to the discussions taking place at broad level including farmers’ perception, labour issues and other socio-economic considerations associated with Bt cotton in India. Farmers’ suicides, declining proportion of irrigated area under cotton, yield stagnation, American Bollworms’ are matters of concern and show the need of having a full-fledged system for the incorporation of socio-economic considerations in the decision making and further promotion of Bt cotton or GMO crops. The observation of the study on the impact of Bt cotton on different socio-economic factors provides comparative analysis of pre- and post-Bt cotton period, which may help in establishing a longterm post-production monitoring system. At the same time, it is also important to analyze whether widespread adoption of Bt cotton is resulting in monoculture, and if so what is its likely impact on economic outcomes in future. The mandate of this study, perhaps, did not include this, but assessment of socio-economic considerations should include such parameters. The book looks like a collection of research articles, in which plenty of statistical information is provided but comparatively with a little explanation. At many places, same text is repeatedly used. A few grammatical errors are observed in the first and the third chapters. In 2015, another book on Bt cotton India’s Tryst with Bt Cotton: Learning from the First Decade, edited by N. Lalitha and P. K. Viswanathan was published which discusses about the introduction of Bt cotton aspects, case studies of cotton growers in Gujarat, and labour issues in Punjab, and wraps up with detailed chapter on chances of long-term sustainability of Bt cotton. The two books together provide a better view of Bt cotton and its status as well as impact and future possibilities in India. The book is a major value addition to the literature on the socioeconomic impacts of Bt cotton and provides important dataset and clues on extending the research to include wider social and economic concerns.