“U.S.

-India Knowledge
Initiative on Agricultural
Education, Research,
Service and Commercial
Linkages” aka AKI / KIA

Kavitha Kuruganti
Centre for Sustainable
Agriculture
Importance of a debate on
KIA….
 Supposed to attain and sustain the second
and ever-green revolution in Indian
agriculture
 Agreement at the highest level –
considered by many as the trade-off for
India’s “gains” on the Indo-US Nuclear Deal
 GR processes were untouched by civil
society for various reasons – cannot afford
to let another GR happen with similar
results
 Science & Democracy – opening
agriculture research institutions to
Why is this of significance to
us?
 Content (per se) – what the KIA
proposes to do – institutional
mechanisms being used
 Links with the larger reality and with
the past – the analysis and the
diagnosis
 Undemocratic processes adopted
and being adopted even now
 The potential socio-political
implications especially for Indian
 CRISIS in INDIAN FARMING
MACRO-LEVEL
 Country’s food security shaky?
 Increasing imports – more need to compete
in the face of liberalisation even in domestic
markets
 “Ecological damage & technology fatigue”
 Climate change impacts
 Irrelevant agriculture research, collapsing
agriculture extension systems – public sector
research share coming down steadily
 Major land use shifts – land from agriculture
to non-agricultural uses; from food grains to
non-food grains; from food uses to feed for
certain grains.
 Water crisis – quality, over-exploitation,
 CRISIS FOR FARMERS….
FARMER LEVEL

 Factor productivity coming down – of land,

fertilisers, seeds, water etc. etc.
 Cost of production increasing constantly
 Unremunerative markets – unfavourable
markets
 Displacement from land – EXIT?
 No dignity and social status attached to the
profession
 More margins shifting away from primary
producers
 Land degradation and exploitation of water
resources
 Lifestyle changes –increasing income aspirations
Indian Farming at Crossroads
 Further intensification (high external inputs) Vs.
Internalisation into farming systems – control over
nature Vs. cooperation with nature
 Export markets Vs. Domestic markets
 Liberalisation Vs. Import Substitution (“livelihood
security”)
 Genetic diversity Vs. Monocropping at the gene level
 Public good through public sector Vs. Agri agenda
driven by commercial interests
 Centralised processes Vs. Community-upwards
agriculture development processes
 Techno-centric Vs. Holistic development processes
 Institutionalised knowledge Vs. Knowledge with
farmers
 FARMERS [& THEIR FARM LIVELIHOODS] Vs.
AGRICULTURE [without millions of farmers!]
What are the policy-makers
saying?
Kisan Policy:
"Ecology, equity, economics and employment are the
foundations of our report” - Swaminathan
‘Need for pro-nature, pro-poor, pro-women and pro-
livelihood orientation’.

 Land (assess soil fertility; land consolidation; prime

farmland not to be diverted to SEZs)
 Water (more efficient use of water – equity in water – a
drought code)
 Credit and Insurance (debt restructuring, expand credit,
comprehensive insurance for farm families)
 Technology (diff. technologies for diff. kinds of farmlands
– low risk techniques in drought prone areas)
 Markets (Price Stabilisation mechanism – Market
Intervention Scheme – Universal PDS – Livelihood Security
Box)
 NCF’s draft Kisan Policy
Specifically on Agri Research & Extension
 The research strategy should be pro-
nature and pro-small farmer.
 There is a growing gap between scientific
know-how and field level do-how.
 In addition to the retraining and retooling
of existing extension personnel, there is a
need to promote farmer to farmer
learning.
 The motto of these universities should be
“every scholar an entrepreneur”.
 11th Plan approach paper
Demand side intervention – expanded rural-
rural trade, through employment
generation programmes amongst other
things
Supply side strategy – exploiting potential of
existing technology for cereals, pulses and
oilseeds; bridging knowledge deficit –
effective linkages between universities
and farmers; creating good extension
system; credit at reasonable terms;
addressing insurance and other risk
management issues; specific strategies
needed for different agro-climatic zones;
Expansion of major and medium irrigation;
participatory irrigation management;
Increased focus on groundwater
management in rainfed areas
11th Plan approach paper
 Focus of the National Agricultural
Research System (NARS):
Clearer demarcation of responsibilities
within
NARS between basic research (may not
contribute immediately to growth), and
more
immediate requirement to adapt and
disseminate existing technology and
provide
region-specific problem solving capacity
"Our first Green Revolution benefited
in substantial measure from
assistance provided by the U.S. We
are hopeful that the Knowledge
Initiative on Agriculture will become
the harbinger of a second green
revolution in our country“ –

Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh,

in the US Congress in 2005
KIA: Chronology of events
 July 18th 2005: Manmohan Singh’s visit to the US –
KIA agreement finalized – establishing a standing
Indo-US Joint Working Group
 July 20th 2005: MoU on S&T signed between India &
US
 November 12th 2005: Joint Declaration by Mangala
Rai & J B Penn
 December 15th & 16th, 2005: 1st Board Meeting
Washington DC
 February 13th & 14th, 2006: 2nd Board Meeting in
Delhi
 March 2006: George Bush visits India, specifically
Hyderabad
 (May 22nd 2006: USA approaches the WTO on
India’s GM regulatory regime and invokes the joint
collaboration in its questioning)
 June 6th & 7th, 2006: 3rd Board Meeting in
 KIA budget outlays
Education, learning
resources, curriculum
development & training……….………..65 crores

Food Processing, Use

of byproducts & bio-fuels………….……45 crores

Emerging Technologies……………...214.5 crores

(61%)

Water Management……………………..25.5 crores

Over 500 faculty members expected to be trained

over 3 years out of around 4450 scientific posts in
 Agri research budgets-
trend
2001-02 (plan) 684 crores
2002-03 (plan) 775 crores
2003-04 (plan) 775 crores
2004-05 (plan) 1000 crores
2005-06 (plan) 1150 crores
2006-07 (plan) 1315 crores

Indo-US Knowledge Initiative Budgets: 350

crores over 3 years (115 crores per year
on an average) – about 9% of the plan
outlay. From the US’s side, no budgets put
aside!
 Under Theme 1 of Agri
Research & Education
Shifting of approach from
(i) piecemeal to holistic solutions,
(ii) commodity to production systems,
(iiI) applied to basic and strategic
research,
(iv) mono-disciplinary to interdisciplinary
research,
(v) single institution to cross organization
and trans country working and
(vi) home-based consumer to market-
driven agriculture.
Objectives of re-orienting
education, learning
resources, curricula &
training
 To enhance quality and relevance of
higher education through reorientation
and refinement of course curricula,
learning resources and delivery
processes.
 To develop and enhance human
capacity in the emerging areas
through training and faculty exchange
 To promote industry-academia
interaction to enhance relevance of
education and research on a changing
time scale.
 Proposed activities
 Training (Inservice & group)
 Faculty exchange (participation in
collaborative research, team visits, post
doctoral programmes)
 Workshops
 Consultancy
 Public-Private partnership

Expected outcome includes “graduates with

more
social responsiveness on issues such as
environment, equity, poverty alleviation
etc.”
Under Theme 2: Food
Processing, Byproduct
Utilisation & Biofuels
“Post harvest losses amount to 50,000 crores in India;
Value addition to agro-produce is 7% compared to
60-70% in developed world”

OBJECTIVES:
 Development of technology for innovative processed
and value added products from plant and livestock
produce.
 Development of technology for an economic
utilization of agricultural byproducts.
 Development of technology for bio-fuels from
agricultural biomass.
 Human resource development in critical areas of
agro-processing and value addition.
Budget estimates under this
theme
Food Processing 24.5 crores
Byproduct Utilization 55 crores
Biofuel 15 crores

Expected Output:
• “Knowledge about hidden wealth in
biological materials”
• “Availability of specialty foods and
industry raw materials that meet
consumer/ industrial need within India &
abroad”
Under Theme 3 of
Biotechnology
 Genomics in crops, animals and fishes
[pigeonpea, water buffalo, finfish]: 90 crores
of Rs.
 Molecular breeding in crops and animals
[pulses, wheat, okra etc.]: 30 crores of Rs.
 Development of transgenic crops, animals
and fishes [rice, wheat, mustard, banana,
papaya, cassava etc.]: 25 crores of Rs.
 Molecular approaches for plant and animal
health protection [to detect GM from non-
GM, for eg]: 59.5 crores of Rs.
 Quality assurance, value addition and safety
of food products: 10 crores of Rs.
Theme 4 of Water Management
 To develop and demonstrate water
management strategies for enhancing water
use efficiency and productivity from field to
system/sub basin level in irrigated and
rainfed areas.
 To evolve technological and institutional
interventions for augmentation and effective
use and reuse/recycling of poor and
marginal quality water.
 To integrate modern technology with
incremental methods to assist in planning,
management and dissemination of
information for sustainable use of water
resources with special emphasis on
uncertainty and risk management.
 To evolve enabling processes for influencing
Water management….
 Sustainable use of groundwater
resources [7 crores]
 Water quality management and
remediation [6 crores]
 Use of Modern tools in water
management [3 crores]
 Assessment and management of
agricultural drought [9.5 crores] – incl.
cost effective agro-chemicals for
enhancing water use efficiency,
conservation agriculture etc.
 The Board of the KIA
Board Members (Indian side)
Honorary Adviser: Dr. M.S. Swaminathan
Co-chair: Dr. Mangala Rai, Secretary, Department of Agricultural
Research and Education & Director General, Indian Council of
Agricultural Research
Government Representatives
i) Dr. S. Jai Shankar, Joint Secretary (America), Ministry of
External Affairs
ii) Shri S.L. Bhat, Joint Secretary (Crops, Seeds & TMOP),
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation.
Representatives from State Agricultural Universities/lCAR
Institutions
i) Dr. P.L Gautam, Vice Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant
University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar.
ii) Dr. C. Ramasamy, Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Agricultural
University, Coimbatore
iii) Dr. M.P Yadav, Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute,
Izatnagar,
Representatives from Private Sector - Agri-business
i) Shri Firoze Masani, Masani Farm, Nasik, Maharashtra.
 Board of the KIA
Board Members (US side)
Honorary Adviser: Dr. Norman Borlaug
Co-Chair: Ms. Ellen Terpstra, Administrator, USDA/FAS
Universities
1. Mr. Mortimer Neufville, Executive Vice President, National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
(NASULGC).
2. Mr. Bobby Moser, Vice President and Executive Dean, College
of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Ohio
State University.
3. Mr. Surendra P. Singh, Professor, Agribusiness Tennessee State
University.
Non Government Organization
Mr. Marshall Bouton, Executive Director, Chicago Council on
Foreign Relations.
Private Sector
1. Representative of Monsanto
2. Representative of Wal-mart.
3. Representative of Archer Daniels Midland Company
Some issues of concern &
contention
 What similarities exist between Indian and US
agriculture that we can learn from each other? –
Technology cannot be set in a social vacuum
 What lessons have been learnt from the GR? Is it
a mindless repetition of a similar exercise? What
was the context of the earlier GR and the present
context?
 Why was the “land grant philosophy” abandoned
for GR and why is the philosophy so uni-
directional even now?
 Will techno-centric answers solve the problems of
Indian farmers today? Is it the lack of
technologies or research that is the cause of
many problems witnessed today?
 How will any amount of technology upgradation
on agri-processing and by-product utilisation help
if basic trade issues are not resolved towards a
level playing field?

 Content of KIA per se
 On Agri Research, Education & Extension: Public-
private partnership – shift to basic & strategic
research; Distance education, E-extension – Will
more and more virtual learning mean more
distance from the farmers’ reality? Research
tailored to meet needs of commercial enterprise
 Transgenic technology – all the unresolved issues
 Bio-fuels promotion – Contract Farming (for such
contracts to work, shifts to varieties that are more
suitable to processing!!)
 Community based water management models
available within India. Similarly, drought-proofing is
not a technical issue but more of a socio-political
issue
 IPRs will be a major contentious issue
 Targeted at legal issues like biotechnology
regulation, IPRs, contract farming and changing the
regulatory regime in India
 Processes involved….
 If it is indeed the launch of the second Green Revolution,
no debate at all – was there an official assessment of the
Green Revolution and lessons learnt? Were there any
lessons picked up about innovations in civil society?
 No analysis apparent for the situation experienced today –
the problems are listed as “exciting challenges &
opportunities”!
 Though an agreement at the highest level, no
parliamentary discussion
 Agriculture also a state subject – no involvement of the
state governments
 Farmers’ organisations were not consulted and all major
organisations were against this deal!
 How were the issues selected for the joint collaboration?
How was it assessed that India lacks expertise on the
chosen issues or that it needs such expertise?
 Different even from the collaborations during GR – private
sector taking a lead now. IPRs a major issue now. The US
paid at that time in the form of organisations like Ford &
Rockefeller.
 Many unanswered
questions….
 Is this about India being a testing ground for
several technologies?
 Will India have free access to public sector
technology in the US? Who will hold IPRs for what
is created?
 Is this only for facilitating agri-business
investments in India? There is no mention of agri-
business investments in the US from Indian side!
 Who will this deal have accountability to? No
mention of any safety nets…
 Technology generation and adoption was
supposedly bridged by the extension department
earlier – what is the re-orientation of agri
research telling us here?
Potential socio-political
implications
 Free access to our genetic resources
 Changes in our IPR regime here
 Lax regulation with GM crops and GM crops
pushed in an aggressive manner
 Domestic retail sector taken over by MNCs
 Contract farming driving farming here – small
farmers thrown out of farming
 Public money from India paying for the firmer
establishment of American commercial interests
within India
 More legitimacy to companies like Monsanto and
Cargill known for their anti-farmer policies –
legitimacy to biopiracy…?
 The last nail on the public sector’s coffin? Or the
last nail on the Indian farmer?
 In Conclusion….
 By itself, KIA may not be able to bring
about massive changes other than
significant changes in terms of
policy/legislative changes and creating
more spaces for private players at the
expense of Indian farmers and public
sector

 A combination of KIA with other

programmes and policies might create the
last disaster for Indian farmers….