University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

effects on nutrition and trace element content of the crops, that are visible only later,
and in unexpected forms.
In effect, the industrialized countries demand more research to be done before
allowing clearly modified crops onto their approved lists. This is why the ICRISAT
actions in the developing countries arouse some suspicion – are the semi-arid tropic
countries being used as a testing ground? If this is the case, the organisation is if fact
committing a form of waste dumping that is subtler than some.
According to the NGO Grain (2004) the CGIAR group has lately been advertising
that its International Agricultural Research Centres need to take more creative
measures to keep themselves afloat. Public funding for agricultural research is in
decline and increased private sector investment in the seed industry is a fact. The
result: partnership with the private sector, which, since the development of
genetically modified crops, have become much more interested in the developing
country seed markets. And none of the IARCs have succeeded better in attaining
private sector partnerships than ICRISAT. Their partners number Advanta India,
Mahyco-Monsanto, Proagro Seeds (Bayer), Syngenta India, Zuari Seeds, JK Agri-
Genetics, Monsanto India and Mahindra Hybrid Seeds.
So in terms of Ecological sustainability, the ICRISAT rank must remain ambiguous.
ICRISAT’s programmes do provide large benefits to the poor, the starving and the
struggling farmers of the semi-arid tropics region. They have improved the soil, the
productivity of the crops, and substantially muted the drought-starvation relationship
that reigns in these areas. There is much to be grateful for. But their methods… Since
Ecological sustainability is not only about the needs of humans, you have to wonder
as to the safety of what they are producing.
The Socio-Cultural Perspective
In the Socio-Cultural arena, on the other hand, ICRISAT fares much better. As an
organisation, it has a good track record of working together with the people, rather
than trying to impose change by political or economic force. Similarly, they seem to
be doing their best in working around the old, traditional ways used by the poor
farmers, to augment the conventional methods. There are several examples. In the
case examples, we see the old method of removing the pigeonpea pod borer being
utilized by the ICRISAT researchers for their own pesticide. In the organisation’s
annual report from 2001 (2002) we can read about a programme of micro
fertilization much easier to adapt to poverty-stricken farm areas than today’s wholefield
approach – each seed is planted together with a bottle cap filled with fertilizer,
resulting in precise point fertilization and heavily reduced costs, with only
marginally more work.
Of course, choices have to be made on methods and distribution, all the time – and at
times, the western approach to maximum efficiency shines through. Distribution of
seeds, for instance. Seed relief is usually about distributing free seed to the affected
communities. ICRISAT feels, however that the distribution form is flawed, since
farmers may not get the crop or variety they want because the decision is made by an
24