This feat of promoting home-grown GM crops through PPP model is effective in developing and delivering GM crops to farmers, and this could not be achieved without strong government support and political will. The scientific community in India is capable of developing GM crops that are relevant to India, and the PPP mechanism is an ideal proposition to overcome the danger of monopoly, provided the Government of India recognizes and facilitates PPP to achieve desirable outcome in agriculture.
Interaction with CSOs and other interested groups on GM Crops helps us develop better understanding of making policies regarding GM Crops. The practice of agricultural system by relocating in the case of changing paradigms helps in guiding, and shaping policy problems in the course of action.
virulent pests and weeds (Murali 2016). One of the greatest moves by the present government in the case of Bt variety is that it tries to regulate the prices of Bt cotton seeds and making available GM seeds at affordable prices to the farmers (Sally 2016).
Monsanto controls 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed supplies. Imposing of royalty on local seed companies of cotton becomes a major threat in regulating the Bt cotton prices by the government. If we critically analyze the data and results regarding Bt cotton or GM technology particularly then it is clear that though productivity increases initially it has a mixed result in different regions owing to climatic conditions and other socioeconomic factors. And it is also observed that though for example if we consider the case of Bt cotton then productivity increases slowly but other challenges like virulent pests and weeds emerge causing a decline in the productivity of Bt cotton in the long- run. This causes a major loss to resource-poor farmers (Rao 2013). Whether GM technology can be used in the long run or will make situation better or worse by increasing the number of pests and weeds requires critical analysis by the scientists, policy makers and other interested parties. Emphasis has been on adopting better agronomic practices where farmers could improve productivity as well as through open pollinated cotton seeds which could naturally adapt to local conditions and change in climatic conditions.
The Genetic Appraisal Committee recently stated that India needs more data before making a decision on GM mustard. The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) works as the regulatory body of GM crops. Regulatory system is not independent and till date it has failed to establish an independent regulatory system for GM crops. Critics question the release of Bt brinjal on a number of grounds and most important one is lack or inadequacy of biosafety data. In case of GM mustard, environmental and biosafety data were not made public. It is
interesting to note that there is no national framework on mustard or oilseed crop as such and where GM mustard will fit in is a question to ponder about. But the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) has a dedicated outfit called Directorate of Rapeseed- Mustard Research, which acts as an umbrella body for mustard research and dissemination of technology to farmers. When we consider the use of biotechnology in agriculture it is highly debated and no consensus has been achieved yet. Science is adjusting with the uncertainties of policies undertaken by the government. Science informs policy by producing objective valid and reliable knowledge (Funtowicz and Strandz 2007).
Developing a policy is a matter of becoming informed by science and then in sorting out values and preference in order to formulate the correct and rational policy.
This represents a critical gap in policy processes in agricultural biotechnology. There is a significant disconnect between the public who support the practice and funding of science on the one hand and the practitioners of science, on the other.
Bt crops are useful as it will help to minimize pesticide uses and thus harmful effects of pesticides can be prevented. But again this argument is contested by the CSOs as Bt cotton does not reduce the uses of pesticides as compared to non-Bt cotton seeds and thus becomes ineffective. There are public apprehensions on GMOs but regulatory processes in India need to evolve so as to address the concerns in a way that do not come in the way of adapting to high yielding technologies.
The MMBL has sub-licensed Bt cotton seed technology since 2002 to various domestic seed companies. Also, Monsanto Chief warned it would be difficult to introduce new technologies in India at a time when there is no sanctity of contracts between the two private parties and no guarantee of recovering investments made in research activities: “It will be difficult for MMBL to justify bringing new technologies
into India in an environment where such arbitrary and potentially destructive government intervention makes it impossible to recoup R&D investments focused on delivering extensive farmer benefits and where sanctity of contracts is absent” (cited in The Economic Times 2016). Competition Commission of India has ordered a detailed probe against MMBL for alleged abuse of dominance by the Indian arm of the US-based GM seed giant Monsanto.
The National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog, Government of India needs technological breakthrough in oilseeds and pulses and it suggests the success story of Bt cotton in India and other GM seeds in the worlds and credits the potential of GM technology in providing a major boost to productivity in agriculture (Government of India 2015). Many smaller companies are adding biotechnology research to their existing R&D capacities. Researches in agricultural biotechnology are mostly contractual in nature if it is collaboration between public institutions and the industry.
Scientific barriers cannot be overcome without adequate fund. But at present in India, government support for R&D is too diffuse and limited to have a major impact. it is in this context it will be prudent to ponder about investment of such limited funds on GM crops with uncertain and long return. After more than a decade of introduction of GM crops in India, policy and priority areas are not finalized yet as outputs and risks are uncertain. The discussions regarding GM take these two extreme ends, which can be interpreted only as either acceptable or unacceptable. Bt technology should be evaluated by taking into views of varied actors with feasible or practical field trials and biosafety assessment. What would be interesting to look at is the role of organic crops/support by civil society organizations? It is important to adopt business strategies and policies that take into account the importance of emerging technological innovation (Juma 2016).
In the case of GM crops political nature of policymaking is hidden by the use of technical language as policy reports are often termed objective and scientific through the use of scientific and legal language. As perceived by different scientists working in agricultural biotechnology hold the opinion that decision on policymaking regarding GM crops should be purely based on scientific ground as GM crops are developed by scientists and the right to take decisions on GM or for that matter any other science and technology related areas should be taken by scientists. In case of the GM crops, it should be developed in partnership with the public and private sectors.
The potential benefits and risks associated with emerging technologies can be addressed by scientists, industries and policymakers by undertaking policy change and relevant business strategies which will serve the interests of varied actors. The decision regarding appropriate public policy is critical for the appropriate utilization of new technologies in Indian agriculture.