AGRICULTURE: A development project touted as bringing much-needed innovations to the farming sector has instead come under fire for urging farmers to use more chemicals

Vasana Chinvarakorn

Fifty-eight-year-old farmer Sawat Watchapued is not aware his one-rai "experimental plot" has been the centre of a fierce debate at both the national and international levels.

Last year, he and 18 other farmers in Buri Ram province signed up for a pilot project which claimed to be the first step in overhauling Thailand's agricultural sector, long bogged down in backwardness and poverty.

During the last planting season, the atmosphere in Mr Sawat's village of Ban Fak Khlong was electric. Oversized tractors ploughed selected fields, showcases of advanced land-levelling technology. There was talk that next year the vehicles could be operated by laser-guided remote control.

And that was only the tip of the hi-tech iceberg. Buckets of herbicide and fertiliser were given away and, once in a while, hordes of local and foreign specialists would drop by, either to observe or offer their views on improving productivity.

The project's title was aptly coined; Innovative Partnerships for Agricultural Changes in Technology, or its better-known acronym, Inpact.

It is the brainchild of the Population and Community Development Association (PDA), founded and run by high-profile senator and development activist Mechai Viravaidya, in a joint venture with the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives' Department of Agriculture (DOA).

At first glance, the Inpact project appears to be a small-scale endeavour to introduce state-of-the art knowledge that would help farmers achieve higher yields. But recently some local and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have expressed concern that the project may pose a threat to the long-term sustainability and self-sufficiency of the Thai farming sector.

The Pesticide Action Network-Asia Pacific (Pan-AP) and a Thai-based NGO called Biothai say the project, now entering its second year, has been conducted in a less than transparent manner.

They claim that agro-chemical corporations have been subtly incorporated into the second-year phase of the project under the guise of a so-called non-profit organisation named the Thai Crop Protection Association (TCPA) (see sidebar).

Both Pan-AP and Biothai interpret the expansion of partnerships as a tacit move to expose farmers to heavier use of chemicals, and perpetuate the cycle of depen- dency, debts and environmental hazards.

More specifically, critics point the finger at US-based seed and agro-chemical company Monsanto, a dominant TCPA member, who will be supplying herbicide technology to farmers in the project. Monsanto has been heavily criticised for its ongoing push to commercialise genetically-modified seeds both in Thailand and elsewhere.

Opponents have raised concerns that the Inpact programme may open up a channel for Monsanto to introduce transgenic rice seeds, which have not yet been approved by bio-safety regulatory authorities.

Moreover, Witoon Lianchamroon of Biothai alleges that the involvement of the state-run Krung Thai Bank as provider of micro-credits may pose a conflict of interest given the fact that Mr Mechai is chairman of the bank.

At the Inpact annual meeting on April 30, Dr Robert Raab of IRRI summed up the project's first year results as a "non- controversial" success. But he cautioned that in the next stage, with "other partners" jumping on the bandwagon, things may not run as smoothly. Whether Dr Raab had any inkling of the controversy bubbling beneath the smooth surface is hard to determine.

DUBIOUS PARTNERSHIPS

The dispute focuses on how Monsanto has emerged as a key player in the Inpact project. Sakorn Tripetchpaisal, Monsanto Thailand's business manager for cotton and corn, said his company "was invited" to contribute its expertise in the weed management field.

"Of course, all the other members of TCPA have been asked to join. Why didn't they attend the meeting? Perhaps they could not see opportunities for income generation. But who knows, some might end up with a bigger package than us!" Mr Sakorn says, referring to Inpact's April 30 meeting when he showed up with a representative from Rhone Poulenc, another multinational supplier of agro-chemicals and a TCPA member.

Mr Sakorn insists he attended that meeting as a TCPA representative (he sits on the organisation's executive board) and had "left the Monsanto cap at home."

"We are particularly interested in the project since we have already invested resources to expand our market in the Northeast. The training [on use of herbicide] will thus not pose any bigger burden on us," Mr Sakorn continues.

He declined to elaborate on the size of Monsanto's market share in the region except that it is still rather "small".

Mr Sakorn estimates that the cost of organising workshops and demonstrations for farmers in the Inpact project will only add up to 50,000 baht to overall costs and are thus affordable for TCPA members.

On the other hand, IRRI's Director of External Relations William Padolina gave a flat denial that his organisation "has not entered into any formal agreement for a proposed project in Thailand that involves any private company."

In a press release, Dr Padolina maintains that since IRRI will only be involved in land levelling, use of healthy seeds, and harvesting and threshing technologies, they are not collaborating with Monsanto who are involved in other areas of the project. The IRRI "Guidelines on Collaboration with the Agro-chemical Sector on Weed Management" state: IRRI "as a non-profit international organisation ... must seek collaboration in a manner that ensures its goals and objectives are not compromised."

According to another public statement by IRRI, the Inpact project was first approved in June last year as part of the Thai-IRRI Collaborative Research and Training Work Plan for 1998-2000. Dr Raab said that he first visited PDA and its site projects in the Northeast to explore possible collaboration in 1995. In the same year, Mr Mechai was appointed to the IRRI Board of Trustees.

Both Pan-AP and Biothai are not satisfied with IRRI's explanation. Devlin Kuyek of Pan-AP said IRRI has given "an extremely narrow conception of collaboration" that is limited to signing documents.

"The Inpact project shows how easily IRRI's work can merge with the corporate strategies of agro-chemical companies," charges Mr Kuyek. "An official from Monsanto revealed that the conception of the project came about after a chance meeting with field workers from the Inpact project who immediately saw the logic of collaboration," he says.

Mr Kuyek also points out a rather intricate relationship between IRRI and Monsanto. Former IRRI staffer Paul Teng recently joined Monsanto as director for biotechnology. Prior to his resignation from IRRI, Dr Teng was a key figure behind the "CE 4: Rice-A Way of Life for the Next Generation of Rice Farmers" programme, which subsequently led to the Inpact project.

Dr Teng, who also attended the April 30 Inpact meeting, said his decision to join Monsanto stemmed from his desire to see his work have "an impact" in the real world. He declined to comment on the Inpact project, saying he only came as "an observer" and the matter was under the jurisdiction of Monsanto Thailand.

Urging IRRI to clarify its connections with private companies under the Inpact project, Mr Kuyek insists IRRI should consider non-formal cooperation on the same par as "official collaboration."

"If IRRI is working with PDA and PDA is working with Monsanto on similar activities, then really IRRI is working with Monsanto. And even if IRRI doesn't recognise this, the rest of the world certainly does," says Mr Kuyek.

Meanwhile, Mr Mechai of the PDA has so far not responded to repeated requests by Bangkok Post reporters for an interview.

HERBICIDE SAFER THAN COFFEE?

But why all the fuss about whether Monsanto is involved or not in the Inpact project? Why would IRRI try to distance itself, at least publicly, from private partners in a seemingly educational programme? More fundamentally, why single out Monsanto from the various private partners in the venture?

Mr Kuyek and Biothai's Mr Witoon point to the tarnished image of the US-based multinational.

Monsanto is the world's largest supplier of herbicide under the tradenames of Roundup, Rescue and Spark. (In the overall agro-chemical category, the company ranks second in the world.)

Mr Kuyek says that Monsanto's earlier products, in particular the PCBs and Agent Orange, have been responsible for a host of diseases and environmental disasters around the world. Agent Orange was used extensively by the American military to clear jungles during the Vietnam War.

An attempt by Monsanto last year to enter a similar joint venture between IRRI and a NGO by the name of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh triggered heated protests and eventually the American company was forced to pull out.

"I don't know why all the attacks have been directed at us," says an exasperated Mr Sakorn. The Monsanto manager goes on to boast about his company's glyphosate-based herbicide.

"Do you know what you will die of first, between [using] table salt [klua klaeng], aspirin, coffee and Roundup?" Of the four chemicals cited, he says his company's product was found to be relatively safest in lab tests on mice.

"In another test on rabbits, Roundup has been found to cause less irritation than baby shampoo," adds Sampan Campiranon, who oversees Monsanto's Product Development and Regulatory Affairs.

Both Monsanto officials also provided a research paper which trumpets how glyphosate is environmentally friendly. The paper claims that glyphosate has been classified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as Category E, indicating there is no evidence glyphosate causes cancer in humans. The same report also cites the World Health Organisation's Environmental Health Criteria 159 as saying that the chemical is not carcinogenic or mutagenic.

In stark contrast, an article in the Journal of Pesticide Reform in autumn last year said the US Attorney-General successfully sued Monsanto in 1996 for "false and misleading advertisements". The company had earlier made a claim that its glyphosate products are "safer than table salt, safe for people, pets and the environment."

The same article also cited several scientific studies that found glyphosate responsible for a range of disorders from skin and eye irritations, to respiratory problems, effects on the heart, altered blood pressure, gastro-intestinal problems, diarrhoea and growth retardation.

Other studies link Roundup to tumours in the thyroid, pancreas and liver, as well as a lower libido and sperm count for males, a lengthened reproductive cycle and increased number of miscarriages for women, and a reduced birth weight for babies. Glyphosate is also the third most- commonly reported cause of pesticide illness among farm workers in California.

"Sure glyphosate is safer than their earlier products like Agent Orange," says Mr Kuyek. "It may be a step-up from paraquat [another highly toxic agro-chemical], but this hardly makes it safe."

FULL-CIRCLE MONOPOLY?

Even more worrisome than the promotion of herbicides is the concern that by having an inroad into farmers' cycle of production, Monsanto will be in an advantaged position to expand its role as seed provider, especially for the controversial genetically-modified seeds.

At present, Monsanto is the world's third largest seed company, having bought up strategic shares in major seed companies worldwide. The highlight of its takeovers is probably Delta and Pine Land which develops and owns the "terminator" technology which enables seeds to turn sterile after use, thus preventing farmers from saving them for the next planting seasons.

"As a matter of fact, there are a lot of people who like the idea of biotechnology," says Mr Sakorn. "For example, there are quite a few at the Department of Agriculture. But they just keep it to themselves. Unlike some who have their personal agenda and criticise a lot."

Mr Sakorn repeatedly denies his company has a policy to introduce transgenic rice seeds, only saying it "ranks at the bottom of Monsanto's list of priorities."

On the other hand, he admits the company has been working on a series of cash crop seeds that are resistant to Roundup herbicide, such as cotton and maize. The seeds have been dubbed "Roundup Ready", as Dr Sampan says the term "ready" seems to create a more positive feeling among customers than "resistant".

"By coupling our seeds and herbicide technology on the same farm, farmers will benefit greatly," says Dr Sampan.

"They can choose to plant at their own time. Just spray the herbicide then plant the seeds. No tillage will be needed, because everything else will die. Of course, except the crops and the farmers."

Such a vision of the future is exactly what concerns Mr Witoon of Biothai. There is no guarantee, he says, that the genetically-modified technology will not be introduced in the name of development.

Moreover, the social activist fears Monsanto's direct involvement in the Inpact project may allow them easy access to high quality varieties of Thai rice.

Mr Witoon's worries may prove right, considering the villagers' implicit trust in so-called experts.

When asked what she would do if someone recommended to her a new kind of rice seed, Chun Ararm, another farmer in the Inpact project, says she would try it.

"If the seeds were harmful, they would not ask us to try them, would they?." she says. "Besides, Thai people like experimenting with new things."

BEST CHOICE FOR THAI FARMERS?

At the height of the Inpact controversy, Mr Sakorn sums up Monsanto's stance: "The only thing we ever ask for is to have a right to present ourselves as another alternative for farmers."

Citing the forecast of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on population growth in the next century, Mr Sakorn expresses his firm belief that if people turn to chemical-free, organic farming, there will certainly be a famine.

"I don't object to organic agriculture, but I think it's only for the wealthy people. The yields are lower, thus the higher price.

"But with our food crop technology, we will have abundance of food, and it perfectly suits the poor," says Mr Sakorn.

Dr Sampan also claims that his company's technology fits nicely with His Majesty the King's recent proposal for self-sufficient farming, or the "New Theory". He said the Roundup herbicide is also available in small packages for small-scale farmers.

"So even if you are poor, and have only a couple of rai to grow cotton, you can also practise the New Theory with our product."

Mr Witoon interprets the concept of "choice" for farmers in a very different way, however. For him, farmers should be in a position to decide which mode of agriculture, self-sufficient or commercial, they want to go.

However, the Inpact project, with heavy promotional campaigns for agro-chemicals and other products, seem to indirectly lead farmers to think there is only one route to take, and that is the one recommended by the agencies involved in Inpact.

"Genuine development must respect farmers' opinions and ways of life," says Mr Witoon.

The NGO staffer also questions the involvement of the state-run Krung Thai Bank with its programme to lend financial support to the Inpact project.

According to a senior Krung Thai Bank official, who asked not to be named, the micro-credit programme is Mr Mechai's initiative, and the first branch will be at Nang Rong district in Buri Ram province where the Inpact programme is being carried out.

The requirements for loans are basically that only farmers' groups or cooperatives can apply, and the money must go toward acquisition of agricultural inputs. Such a scheme, if implemented, is unacceptable in Mr Witoon's view.

"This is spending the state's, that is, the taxpayers' money to indirectly support private companies," says Mr Witoon.

He elaborated that there had been a similar attempt by Monsanto to get the Department of Agriculture to purchase the company's genetically-modified cotton seeds and distribute them to farmers.

The Biothai activist added he does not think the world is facing the threat of food insecurity, as claimed by agro-chemical companies. Insufficient supply is an out-of-date excuse, says Mr Witoon, who stresses that unfair distribution and management are the real culprits.

In many cases, adoption of advanced technology in the farming sector may even exacerbate the problems, he says.

Unfortunately, Mr Witoon's criticisms are unlikely to reach farmers like Mr Sawat and Mrs Chun. They look eagerly to the upcoming planting season, and both say they plan to increase the size of their experimental plots by another rai each.

Whether they will become the new generation of rice farmers, as dreamed up by the Inpact planners, and how long that will last, is up in the air.

* For information on a similar joint venture programme in Bangladesh, and the ensuing controversy, check the Pesticide Action Network-Asia Pacific at