Showing posts with label commercial hybrids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commercial hybrids. Show all posts
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Cordray's tough talk upsetting lobbyists
Attorney General Richard Cordray riled the Capitol Square lobbying community by issuing what some characterized as an overly strong news release that mentioned corruption and using his authority to investigate lobbying activity.
The release came Tuesday night, after Legislative Inspector General Tony Bledsoe sent the names of 15 lobbyists and employers to the attorney general's collections enforcement section for failing to pay $2,200 in late fees. The penalties were assessed for not filing expenditure statements on time.
The release, which attributed quotes to Cordray, made little mention of the late fees. It did note that "lobbying activity in Ohio is at an all-time high," and "any hard-working Ohioan in this tough economy would love to see that kind of job growth."
"They put some lines in there that were probably unnecessary," said Victor Hipsley, president of the Ohio Lobbying Association.
In the line that got the most attention, Cordray said: "Clearly, more than ever, the expertise of the attorney general's office is needed to help prevent corruption as wealthy and well-connected special interests increasingly attempt to shape the laws and public policies that affect ordinary Ohioans."
Hipsley and other lobbyists thought Cordray was implying he knew of corruption. They also worried that Cordray was trying to move in on the enforcement of state lobbying laws, a role handled by Bledsoe's office under Ohio law.
Hipsley said he was satisfied that is not the case after he met with Cordray yesterday afternoon.
A Cordray spokeswoman said: "We shared with them and the Ohio legislative inspector
Source:dispatch.com/
Monday, January 4, 2010
Pa. Casino Group Says Its Activity Wasn't Lobbying
A casino trade association headed by a former state Supreme Court chief justice rebutted a lawmaker's criticism by saying that it doesn't have to register under Pennsylvania's lobbying-disclosure law because its activities don't meet the legal definition of lobbying.
House Gaming Oversight Committee Chairman Dante Santoni, D-Berks, had posed questions about the Pennsylvania Casino Association and its activities surrounding a bill that would expand casino gambling.
Santoni said Monday that he was still reading through the group's Dec. 1 letter and was considering whether to hold a hearing on the matter.
"I want to check with some legal minds first on the lobbying issue to see whether we should go forward," Santoni said.
House and Senate negotiators are still trying to work out the remaining differences in a bill to legalize table games such as poker and blackjack at slot-machine casinos and to expand the number of slot machines at smaller resort casinos.
Proponents say expanding gambling is a less painful alternative to raising taxes to shore up the state's recession-ravaged treasury. Opponents, however, say the measure is a favor for the powerful gambling industry.
According to the casino association's letter, it sent three e-mails to lawmakers about pending legislation and paid for a radio ad that warned that a state tax above 12 percent on table games would mean fewer jobs and higher taxes for state residents.
Including employee compensation, the e-mails cost less than $500 to send, well within the exemption for registering and reporting in the state's lobbying disclosure law, association board member Richard Sprague wrote in the letter. The threshold is $2,500 per quarter.
Also, the radio ad did not address an actual piece of legislation and did not ask listeners to contact legislators, wrote Sprague, who is an investor in the SugarHouse Casino project in Philadelphia. The letter did not say how much the association paid for the radio ad.
Source:abcnews.go.com/
House Gaming Oversight Committee Chairman Dante Santoni, D-Berks, had posed questions about the Pennsylvania Casino Association and its activities surrounding a bill that would expand casino gambling.
Santoni said Monday that he was still reading through the group's Dec. 1 letter and was considering whether to hold a hearing on the matter.
"I want to check with some legal minds first on the lobbying issue to see whether we should go forward," Santoni said.
House and Senate negotiators are still trying to work out the remaining differences in a bill to legalize table games such as poker and blackjack at slot-machine casinos and to expand the number of slot machines at smaller resort casinos.
Proponents say expanding gambling is a less painful alternative to raising taxes to shore up the state's recession-ravaged treasury. Opponents, however, say the measure is a favor for the powerful gambling industry.
According to the casino association's letter, it sent three e-mails to lawmakers about pending legislation and paid for a radio ad that warned that a state tax above 12 percent on table games would mean fewer jobs and higher taxes for state residents.
Including employee compensation, the e-mails cost less than $500 to send, well within the exemption for registering and reporting in the state's lobbying disclosure law, association board member Richard Sprague wrote in the letter. The threshold is $2,500 per quarter.
Also, the radio ad did not address an actual piece of legislation and did not ask listeners to contact legislators, wrote Sprague, who is an investor in the SugarHouse Casino project in Philadelphia. The letter did not say how much the association paid for the radio ad.
Source:abcnews.go.com/
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Calendar among lobbyists’ foes
INDIANAPOLIS – A short legislative session won’t deter lawmakers from pushing significant policy changes related to two of Indiana’s largest vices – gambling and alcohol.
But the compressed 10-week period could reduce the likelihood of success.
“Because it’s a short session, and we are going into a big election year, it’s going to be probably difficult to get a lot done,” said Mike Smith, president of the Casino Association of Indiana and a former lawmaker himself.
But others believe the severe economic recession could help pave the way for change at Indiana casinos.
“We always make difficult policy decisions when we have an economic pistol to our head,” House Republican Leader Brian Bosma said. “When we need money, we come to the trough time and time again.”
When lawmakers convene Jan. 5, one of the biggest decisions facing them is whether to allow existing riverboat casinos to move to land-based operations, possibly after paying a fee to the state.
Other gaming issues include holding a referendum in Fort Wayne to gauge support for a casino and changing state tax structure for the state’s two racinos, which are at its two horse tracks.
The debate comes as the state faces an onslaught of competition from Michigan and other states including Ohio, where voters last month approved four casinos that are expected to open in just a few years. That means some legislators are concerned about protecting the state’s gaming tax revenue as much as growing it.
“My colleagues would rather not interact with gambling this session, but we are regulators of an industry that gives $900 million a year to the state,” said Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla. “We don’t have the luxury of saying this is uncomfortable to deal with.”
Although a special legislative committee recently made findings in support of some of the gambling issues, a similar group looking at the alcohol industry was divided.
That panel approved a few smaller provisions, such as allowing alcohol sales on Election Day and moving to a uniform ID verification system.
But the panel voted against the most significant alcohol proposal – allowing groceries and other retailers to sell carry-out alcohol on Sundays. Regardless, at least one bill on the subject has already been filed, and the issue could receive the first floor vote on the subject that anyone can remember.
Matt Norris, director of Hoosiers for Beverage Choices, said if lawmakers were creating regulations for the alcohol industry from scratch, there would be no question about allowing Sunday sales.
But because alcohol laws evolved over time, legislators fear the change would put locally owned liquor stores out of business because those stores currently aren’t open on Sunday and would see increased administrative costs compared with groceries.
“We are encouraging our members to push the effort locally and talk to their legislators,” he said. “More contentious issues are harder to pass in election years. And a short session makes it more of an uphill climb.”
Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mount Vernon, chairman of the alcohol study committee, said he doesn’t expect the Sunday sales issue to pass.
That leaves gambling as one of the prime issues of the session.
“Anybody that tells you that something isn’t going to happen in the gambling arena doesn’t understand the hundreds of high-powered lobbying interests out there,” Bosma said.
“I don’t discount any possibility in this short session. They wield such dramatic power that there is always a possibility that it would pass. It is now a way of life in the General Assembly.”
House Speaker Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, said gambling bills usually start in the House, and he hopes the Senate would step forward if bills are to advance this session.
He said House Democrats were “clubbed” last session when they considered a bill to level out the tax structure for racinos. But it was often termed a bailout and died.
The casino association’s Smith said some small changes might have success, such as removing marine navigation requirements for riverboats, including having a captain aboard; freeing up the use of promotional alcohol for special events; and clarifying that the casinos won’t shut down in the event of a state budget impasse.
But all the heat will be on the major issues.
Land-based gaming
Now that the state essentially has two land-based casinos at its two horse tracks, this once-reviled option is gaining favor. But there is some confusion about what going land-based would mean.
One option is allowing riverboat casinos to expand onto land at their current location. Another is letting them move – perhaps closer to highways.
That is what Gary officials want to do with one of the two licenses there. In exchange for the change, the second license would revert to the Indiana Gaming Commission.
“Gaming is a billion-dollar industry in Indiana, and it provides tax revenues to the state and to our local communities,” said Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary, who has already filed a bill authorizing land-based gambling. “The commitment we’re offering is to keep the burdens low so Indiana’s industry can compete amidst the changing dynamics.”
Gov. Mitch Daniels said he has always found Indiana’s riverboats – which stopped cruising on the water years ago – to be “amusing fiction” and isn’t particularly bothered by going land-based so long as there is no expansion of gaming.
Local referendum
Since early this year, Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry has been pushing state officials, so far unsuccessfully, to allow him to have a referendum on casino gambling.
And the recent gaming committee findings don’t help his cause much since they oppose expanding casino gambling to any new counties or cities.
But with a Gary license possibly available, there will be pressure to put that license somewhere.
Bell said Fort Wayne’s chances are hurt because there is not a consistent message coming from the community. In fact, Henry is the only public official in favor of it, with many residents and officials publicly against having a local vote.
“Governments shift the burden down to gamblers,” Fort Wayne resident Charlie Wilson said. “And gamblers shift the burden to those they love the most.”
Henry argues that a recent study found a casino in Fort Wayne would make additional revenue for the state and that the committee agreed in general that a community should approve casino gambling through a referendum before moving forward.
But Van Haaften said an “argument could be made that a casino in every county in the state could increase revenue. Until there is a license available, it’s a moot discussion.”
Tax structure
Another key finding of the gambling study committee is that the tax structure set up for racinos is unfair. Each racino is required to give money off the top of its gross receipts to horsemen groups for breeding development and race purses.
But the state requires the racinos to pay taxes on the total gross receipts even though the racino doesn’t get to keep that money.
Changing the structure would cost the state millions of dollars in tax revenue annually at a time when revenue shortfalls have forced Daniels to cut education spending and lay off state employees.
“This provision is important to address the disparity of tax treatment between the racinos and the riverboats,” said Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson.
“The change will maintain support for the state’s horse racing industry but alleviate some of the unnecessary tax burden on the racinos. The jobs provided by both of these industries are critical to our local economies.”
But Van Haaften and others believe any changes that will negatively affect state revenue have no chance. Daniels is also against giving a bailout or tax break to companies that voluntarily entered into the industry.
Source:journalgazette.net/
But the compressed 10-week period could reduce the likelihood of success.
“Because it’s a short session, and we are going into a big election year, it’s going to be probably difficult to get a lot done,” said Mike Smith, president of the Casino Association of Indiana and a former lawmaker himself.
But others believe the severe economic recession could help pave the way for change at Indiana casinos.
“We always make difficult policy decisions when we have an economic pistol to our head,” House Republican Leader Brian Bosma said. “When we need money, we come to the trough time and time again.”
When lawmakers convene Jan. 5, one of the biggest decisions facing them is whether to allow existing riverboat casinos to move to land-based operations, possibly after paying a fee to the state.
Other gaming issues include holding a referendum in Fort Wayne to gauge support for a casino and changing state tax structure for the state’s two racinos, which are at its two horse tracks.
The debate comes as the state faces an onslaught of competition from Michigan and other states including Ohio, where voters last month approved four casinos that are expected to open in just a few years. That means some legislators are concerned about protecting the state’s gaming tax revenue as much as growing it.
“My colleagues would rather not interact with gambling this session, but we are regulators of an industry that gives $900 million a year to the state,” said Rep. Matt Bell, R-Avilla. “We don’t have the luxury of saying this is uncomfortable to deal with.”
Although a special legislative committee recently made findings in support of some of the gambling issues, a similar group looking at the alcohol industry was divided.
That panel approved a few smaller provisions, such as allowing alcohol sales on Election Day and moving to a uniform ID verification system.
But the panel voted against the most significant alcohol proposal – allowing groceries and other retailers to sell carry-out alcohol on Sundays. Regardless, at least one bill on the subject has already been filed, and the issue could receive the first floor vote on the subject that anyone can remember.
Matt Norris, director of Hoosiers for Beverage Choices, said if lawmakers were creating regulations for the alcohol industry from scratch, there would be no question about allowing Sunday sales.
But because alcohol laws evolved over time, legislators fear the change would put locally owned liquor stores out of business because those stores currently aren’t open on Sunday and would see increased administrative costs compared with groceries.
“We are encouraging our members to push the effort locally and talk to their legislators,” he said. “More contentious issues are harder to pass in election years. And a short session makes it more of an uphill climb.”
Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mount Vernon, chairman of the alcohol study committee, said he doesn’t expect the Sunday sales issue to pass.
That leaves gambling as one of the prime issues of the session.
“Anybody that tells you that something isn’t going to happen in the gambling arena doesn’t understand the hundreds of high-powered lobbying interests out there,” Bosma said.
“I don’t discount any possibility in this short session. They wield such dramatic power that there is always a possibility that it would pass. It is now a way of life in the General Assembly.”
House Speaker Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, said gambling bills usually start in the House, and he hopes the Senate would step forward if bills are to advance this session.
He said House Democrats were “clubbed” last session when they considered a bill to level out the tax structure for racinos. But it was often termed a bailout and died.
The casino association’s Smith said some small changes might have success, such as removing marine navigation requirements for riverboats, including having a captain aboard; freeing up the use of promotional alcohol for special events; and clarifying that the casinos won’t shut down in the event of a state budget impasse.
But all the heat will be on the major issues.
Land-based gaming
Now that the state essentially has two land-based casinos at its two horse tracks, this once-reviled option is gaining favor. But there is some confusion about what going land-based would mean.
One option is allowing riverboat casinos to expand onto land at their current location. Another is letting them move – perhaps closer to highways.
That is what Gary officials want to do with one of the two licenses there. In exchange for the change, the second license would revert to the Indiana Gaming Commission.
“Gaming is a billion-dollar industry in Indiana, and it provides tax revenues to the state and to our local communities,” said Sen. Earline Rogers, D-Gary, who has already filed a bill authorizing land-based gambling. “The commitment we’re offering is to keep the burdens low so Indiana’s industry can compete amidst the changing dynamics.”
Gov. Mitch Daniels said he has always found Indiana’s riverboats – which stopped cruising on the water years ago – to be “amusing fiction” and isn’t particularly bothered by going land-based so long as there is no expansion of gaming.
Local referendum
Since early this year, Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry has been pushing state officials, so far unsuccessfully, to allow him to have a referendum on casino gambling.
And the recent gaming committee findings don’t help his cause much since they oppose expanding casino gambling to any new counties or cities.
But with a Gary license possibly available, there will be pressure to put that license somewhere.
Bell said Fort Wayne’s chances are hurt because there is not a consistent message coming from the community. In fact, Henry is the only public official in favor of it, with many residents and officials publicly against having a local vote.
“Governments shift the burden down to gamblers,” Fort Wayne resident Charlie Wilson said. “And gamblers shift the burden to those they love the most.”
Henry argues that a recent study found a casino in Fort Wayne would make additional revenue for the state and that the committee agreed in general that a community should approve casino gambling through a referendum before moving forward.
But Van Haaften said an “argument could be made that a casino in every county in the state could increase revenue. Until there is a license available, it’s a moot discussion.”
Tax structure
Another key finding of the gambling study committee is that the tax structure set up for racinos is unfair. Each racino is required to give money off the top of its gross receipts to horsemen groups for breeding development and race purses.
But the state requires the racinos to pay taxes on the total gross receipts even though the racino doesn’t get to keep that money.
Changing the structure would cost the state millions of dollars in tax revenue annually at a time when revenue shortfalls have forced Daniels to cut education spending and lay off state employees.
“This provision is important to address the disparity of tax treatment between the racinos and the riverboats,” said Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson.
“The change will maintain support for the state’s horse racing industry but alleviate some of the unnecessary tax burden on the racinos. The jobs provided by both of these industries are critical to our local economies.”
But Van Haaften and others believe any changes that will negatively affect state revenue have no chance. Daniels is also against giving a bailout or tax break to companies that voluntarily entered into the industry.
Source:journalgazette.net/
Saturday, December 19, 2009
True competition
Dr. Bruner’s letter of Dec. 17 makes an incorrect assumption. He infers that by providing a government option or a Medicare buy-in option it will provide the “competitive pressure” necessary to drive down the costs of health care insurance premiums.
What is needed is more insurance companies being able to do business in more states. This would provide true competition to drive down premiums. Pay attention everybody: The government can’t run anything correctly. The government has never completed anything for the original estimated costs. The government has never run anything efficiently. The government does not create jobs or wealth. The only thing the government can do is take something from one person and give it to another. That’s it!
The government is not the answer! Private industry and small business that are allowed to flourish create a healthy economy. If you are curious about where the liberals in this world are trying to lead us, take a hard look at what Hugo Chavez had to say in Copenhagen. He quoted Karl Marx, railed against capitalism and received extended ovations for his “inspiration.” There is our future if we allow it and this health care bill to proceed
Source:ljworld.com/
What is needed is more insurance companies being able to do business in more states. This would provide true competition to drive down premiums. Pay attention everybody: The government can’t run anything correctly. The government has never completed anything for the original estimated costs. The government has never run anything efficiently. The government does not create jobs or wealth. The only thing the government can do is take something from one person and give it to another. That’s it!
The government is not the answer! Private industry and small business that are allowed to flourish create a healthy economy. If you are curious about where the liberals in this world are trying to lead us, take a hard look at what Hugo Chavez had to say in Copenhagen. He quoted Karl Marx, railed against capitalism and received extended ovations for his “inspiration.” There is our future if we allow it and this health care bill to proceed
Source:ljworld.com/
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Skabar lobbying for remand centre
AMHERST – Brian Skabar is well aware of how people in this part of Nova Scotia feel about the loss of the area’s lone correctional centre and he’s working to try to minimize the impact.
The Cumberland North MLA said he is as disappointed as everyone about his government’s decision to build one new correctional centre to replace aging jails in Amherst and Antigonish, and he’s working with Justice Minister Ross Landry to put something in place that will handle the immediate demands of the system.
“I have spoken to the minister about concerns with the maintenance of the justice system in the Amherst area after the jail is gone and have been given every assurance that arrangements will be in place,” Skabar said Wednesday.
“There should be a press release from the minister’s office soon on that.”
Skabar said a remand centre is something he is hoping the province will commit to so that offenders don’t have to be shuttled across northern Nova Scotia between court appearances.
Soon after the province announced its plan to build a new jail somewhere between Truro and Antigonish, the local legal community and law enforcement agencies expressed concern with the administration of justice if offenders had to be shipped back and forth to another part of the province.
Skabar has made those concerns known to the justice minister and feels a remand centre in the area would alleviate those problems.
Since Landry’s decision, Skabar has taken a lot of heat from his constituents. Skabar understands the frustration, adding that as much as he understands the decision, it hasn’t made it easier to accept.
The MLA said that during the spring election campaign, he advocated making the jail decision on the best business case. At that time, he figured the plan was to build two jails and that Amherst would probably be an economical choice over the previous government’s proposed jail in Springhill.
But now that the province’s financial picture was clarified, he understands the decision to build one jail instead of two. That doesn’t mean he has to like it.
“Do I support the government's position on this matter? I do. Do I like it? No,” Skabar said.
“As someone from Amherst and the Cumberland North MLA, I don’t like the decision, but as a Nova Scotian I have to support saving over $5 million to build it and saving over $1 million a year in operating it.”
Skabar, who has yet to see the business plan on which the decision was based, said he has had several discussions with Amherst Mayor Robert Small, but could not attend a news conference held last week by area municipal leaders because he was not notified about it until the night before.
dcole@amherstdaily.com
Source:amherstdaily.com/i
The Cumberland North MLA said he is as disappointed as everyone about his government’s decision to build one new correctional centre to replace aging jails in Amherst and Antigonish, and he’s working with Justice Minister Ross Landry to put something in place that will handle the immediate demands of the system.
“I have spoken to the minister about concerns with the maintenance of the justice system in the Amherst area after the jail is gone and have been given every assurance that arrangements will be in place,” Skabar said Wednesday.
“There should be a press release from the minister’s office soon on that.”
Skabar said a remand centre is something he is hoping the province will commit to so that offenders don’t have to be shuttled across northern Nova Scotia between court appearances.
Soon after the province announced its plan to build a new jail somewhere between Truro and Antigonish, the local legal community and law enforcement agencies expressed concern with the administration of justice if offenders had to be shipped back and forth to another part of the province.
Skabar has made those concerns known to the justice minister and feels a remand centre in the area would alleviate those problems.
Since Landry’s decision, Skabar has taken a lot of heat from his constituents. Skabar understands the frustration, adding that as much as he understands the decision, it hasn’t made it easier to accept.
The MLA said that during the spring election campaign, he advocated making the jail decision on the best business case. At that time, he figured the plan was to build two jails and that Amherst would probably be an economical choice over the previous government’s proposed jail in Springhill.
But now that the province’s financial picture was clarified, he understands the decision to build one jail instead of two. That doesn’t mean he has to like it.
“Do I support the government's position on this matter? I do. Do I like it? No,” Skabar said.
“As someone from Amherst and the Cumberland North MLA, I don’t like the decision, but as a Nova Scotian I have to support saving over $5 million to build it and saving over $1 million a year in operating it.”
Skabar, who has yet to see the business plan on which the decision was based, said he has had several discussions with Amherst Mayor Robert Small, but could not attend a news conference held last week by area municipal leaders because he was not notified about it until the night before.
dcole@amherstdaily.com
Source:amherstdaily.com/i
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The conversion of Indian farmers from traditional varieties and public hybrids to commercial hybrids and GM seeds could create a market
A fortnight ago, the Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ] headquarters in Delhi [ Images ] received a visit from a representative of a US-based multinational seed subsidiary. His mission: To convince party opinion-makers that Bt brinjal was as swadeshi as baingan ka bharta and should therefore receive their endorsement.
That American agri-companies have intensified lobbying with Indian political parties is not surprising, for two reasons. First, the Indian government has yet to greenlight the commercialisation of Bt brinjal -- crucial for the future of these 'Bt brand' companies -- even after a thumbs up from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).
Also, the winter session of Parliament is to take up two crucial pieces of legislation: The Seed Bill and the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill. Both will profoundly impact the agri-business environment in India [ Images ] for agri-MNCs, by facilitating market access.
Small wonder US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ] made it a point to visit the Indian Agricultural Research Institute in July and reiterate her country's commitment to bringing about policy changes in the Indian farm sector that US agri-business would like to see.
Clinton said she favoured a strong intellectual property or patent regime (IPR) to safeguard the ownership of agricultural research, as that would be in 'everyone's interest'. A contention rejected by Indian agri-policy analysts who say it would primarily benefit owners of biotechnology research -- the MNCs who produce 'Bt' seeds, as genetically modified or GM crops have come to be popularly known (patents would ensure that no one else would be allowed to produce or sell these seeds).
Her technology advisor, Nina Federoff, is a strong votary of genetically modified crops, to the extent of being regarded as a spokesperson for US seed multinationals like Monsanto, Dow and DuPont.
In fact, Federoff triumphantly pointed out to a group of US agri-scientists last year that although Europe and Japan [ Images ] were cautious about GM foods, Africa and India were clamouring for them!
The MNCs have the advantage of an unabashedly pro-GM Minister for Agriculture in Sharad Pawar [ Images ]. However, the Bt ball is currently in the court of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh [ Images ], who is under pressure from the public and the scientific community to delay unleashing the Bt blitzkrieg until a consumer protection regime is in place.
The BJP is divided on the issue and its opposition could delay the passage or alter the shape of the pending Bills. The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, its mentor, has made no secret of its strong opposition to GM crops.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] provided the US-based agri-giants with a readymade vehicle for lobbying with Indian policy-makers during his first term in 2006, when he approved the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture.
It was announced with much fanfare during his visit to the USA and evoked a storm of protest at home, mainly from the Left parties and farmers' bodies.
The AKI, as it is known, boasts MNCs (Monsanto, Walmart, Archer Daniels Midland) as official US representatives on its panel. They have set the agenda for the AKI, with development of transgenic strains of rice and wheat forming a major part of the initiative.
Three-quarters of the Rs 400 crore (Rs 4 billion) commitment by India is earmarked for biotechnology products (the US commitment of $8 million for the year 2006 didn't materialise, prompting Pawar to write to the prime minister, seeking his intervention).
A subsequent attempt was made by the US to alter the focus of the AKI from research to policy issues but was scuttled by the Indian bureaucracy.
The AKI was touted as the next logical step in the '50 years of Indo-US cooperation on agriculture' which started with the Green Revolution that opened the doors to US agro-chemical and seed companies. It is part of the much-hyped 'Second Green Revolution', touted by the PM and his agriculture minister as the answer to India's food security concerns.
The fact that this 'revolution' will be based on bio-technology products owned by private corporations had disturbed Indian farmers' bodies, who have described it as a joint US-India effort to promote the interests of bio-technology-driven MNCs.
The AKI worries Indian agri-policy experts because it gives the MNCs access to India's gene-banks, fuelling fears of bio-piracy. Even more, it also gives them an 'in' to India's enormous agricultural research infrastructure, while the ownership of the collaborative research is not yet clear.
Since they have a clear edge in terms of bio-technology research and are pumping out patented Bt seeds, the MNCs want an IPR regime which would give them a hold on the Indian seed market.
The US already has a significant presence in India's agricultural and food sectors, accounting for more than half of the $1 billion organised seed market. Of course, four-fifths of India's farmers do not purchase seeds. They still follow the traditional system of save, exchange and barter. It is this section that the MNCs would like to target.
The conversion of Indian farmers from traditional varieties and public hybrids to commercial hybrids and GM seeds could create a market larger than China. The Seed Bill, 2004, and the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill are the thin end of the wedge.
The NBRA Bill, if it becomes an Act, would demolish a raft of existing bio-safety regulations, which would enable easier access to the Indian markets.
The Seed Bill has been criticised for diluting many provisions of the existing Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, PPVFR, which safeguards the right of Indian farmers to freely save, exchange and barter seeds.
Source:rediff.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)