Reflections on the Human Condition - Api-fellowships.org

286 SESSION IV
GENE REVOLUTION AND ITS IMPACT ON FARMERS A
COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDONESIA AND THE
PHILIPPINES
Pennapa Hongthong
IN THE NAME OF SEED
Indonesia: Tangible evidence in monopolizing farmers’
life of transnational agro-business
Early September 2004, South Sulawesi province of
Indonesia is burnt with strong sunshine as usual. Para
rubber plantation stand on the nearby hill waves its
leaves when touched by strong wind of summer.
“A part of land plot over there once belonged to me. A
few years ago it was planted with Bt cottons,” says Hasdi
Assidiq, a cotton farmer from Bulukumba district while
pointing to the large rubber plantation in front of him.
A few years ago of Hasdi, means the 2001, one year
after the Indonesian government allowed Monsanto
to commercialize its Bt cotton, a genetically modified
cotton variety, in South Sulawesi province. According
to the promises of Monsanto, seed and agro-chemical
corporation from the United States’ St. Louis, Bt cotton
is able to resist to ballworm which is a major threat to
cotton fields and farmers. If farmers plant Bt cotton,
according to the company’s promise, there is no need
for them to spray pesticides is in the cotton field.
In 2001, sales representatives of Branita Sandhini,
subsidiary of Indonesian Monsanto, approached villagers
in Bulukumba district to introduce a new variety of
cotton together with an offer of credit scheme for those
who wanted to experience the new cotton variety.
Hasdi did not pay attention to the beautiful promises
of the Bt cotton as claimed by the sales representatives.
A long time experiences in dealing with agro-business
brought him an enough perspective not to believe seed
companies. However, he agreed to accept credit scheme
to grow Bt cotton as offered by the company.
UNFAIR CONTRACT AND MARKET
MONOPOLY
To get credit scheme offered by Monsanto, Hasdi had to
group up with other 49 farmers since the company did
not allow an individual to get its credit. The credit is not
provided to farmers in terms of cash, but raw materials
for planting the “pest resistant cotton”, including five kg
of the cotton seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
However, only Polaris pesticide and Roundup herbicide
which are products of Monsanto were in the package.
Ref lections on the Human Condition: Change, Conflict and Modernity
The Work of the 2004/2005 API Fellows
Whether or not the farmers want them, they had to
take and pay for it (detail of material in credit scheme
as presented in table 1).
Table 1: Input package for growing Bt cotton in
one hectare, provided by Monsanto to farmers in
South Sulawesi province.
Input Required
amount
(per hectare)
Price per
Unit (Rp)
Total Price (Rp)
Bt cotton seed 5 Kg 40,000 200,000
Fertiliser
Urea
Za
SP 36
KCI
150 Kg
50 Kg
100 Kg
50 Kg
1,300
1,250
1,800
2,000
195,000
62,000
180,000
100,000
Total Fertiliser - - 537,500
Pesticide
- Polaris
- Round Up
- Insecticide
5 Litres
1 Kg
0.5 Kg
27,500
90,000
190,000
137,500
90,000
95,000
Total Pesticide - - 322,500
Total Prices - - 1,060,000
Source: Announcement of South Sulawesi Governor.
Remark: Only for 2001 planting season.
“We knew at first that the contract is unfair since it
allowed the company to adjust the price alone and it
legally bound us with the company. But, we didn’t have
an alternative. At least it provided us seeds and input
in advance, no need to pay in cash, so we joined the
contract,” says Hasdi.
The contract was considered “unfair” because it
contained four conditions: the licensed seeds could only
be used for one planting season, all risks of harvest failure
by planting the Bt cotton had to be shouldered by the
farmers in order to pay back the credit, the harvested
cotton must only be sold to Branita Sandhini, and the
farmers who abandon their farms should handover the
cotton field for the management of his farmers group. 1
Under the contract, the company could control the
price both selling price or raw materials to farmers and
buying price of harvested cotton from farmers. In 2001,