NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Experts criticise Naidu's dream farming project

An expert team, which recently studied the Israeli-assisted Large Scale Advanced Farm Project at Kuppam, has dubbed it "technically unsound, environmentally hazardous, economically unviable and socially destablising," even as Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu held discussions with Israeli ambassador to India, Dr Yehuda Chaim on ways and means for extending the project over a wider area.

The expert team, under the auspices of the Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity, disputed the state government's claim that the project - located in Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu's home constituency - was a "showcase of appropriate technology and system" and that "Kuppam, after Anand (in Gujarat), may well be the starting point for ushering in yet another revolution centred around the competitive efforts of small groups of farmers."

The team also pooh-poohed the government's claim that "this model may be one of the answers which the Indian agriculture is looking for."

Naidu, at his meeting with the Israeli ambassador, wanted the project, now being implemented over agricultural farms spread over 2,000 acre at an estimated cost of Rs 22 crore, to be extended to 10,000 acres at an additional cost of Rs 45 crore over the next two years.

The chief minister wanted the Israeli government to part-finance the project extension cost, while the remaining funds would be sought from the Government of India and the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (Japan).

However, the expert team, comprising Prof K R Chaudhary and Dr Prasada Rao of the NG Ranga Agricultural University, Dr Venkat of the Permaculture Association of India, Dr Uma Shankari, an expert on natural resources and members of the Chittoor consortium of voluntary agencies, reported its adverse findings against the project.

The team visited Kuppam between February 17 and 19 and a summary of the team's report was released at a convention here by Dr P V Sateesh, convenor, AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity. Citing various technological components in the project, the team concluded that the technology adopted was "scientifically unsound."

"Ploughing and sowing are being done along slopes making these soils highly susceptible to erosion. The top soil is already getting eroded despite very little rainfall. Heavy quantities of agro-chemicals and fertilisers are being used. There is absolutely no use of organic manure. All operations are being done with heavy machinery procured from Israel," the team said.

On the economic viability of the demonstration project, the team pointed out the enormously high expenditure on the project with the expenses working out to around Rs 4.8 lakh per acre. Against this expenditure, gross income of Rs 150 lakh was realised from a gross cropped area of 565 acres with three crops per annum. The income works out to Rs 26,548 per acre.

The company which implemented the project claimed that it had distributed Rs 29 lakh to the farmers at the rate of Rs 17,000 per acre.

The farmers, however, denied having received any payment directly from the company.

The team observed that there was neither transparency nor openness among those managing the demonstration farm. The team was informed that BHC Agro (India) Private Limited, the implementing agency, was on contract.

The contractual obligations were never made clear to farmers, whose lands were taken over to conduct the demonstration, under the aegis of Chaldiganipally Mutually Aided Cooperative Joint Farming Society at Ramakuppam.

The team came to the conclusion that the Kuppam model cannot be replicated on its own. None of the core claims made by the company corroborated with the reality. If the project were to be replicated in other parts of the state, it would lead to a spate of social problems and even social upheavals of uncontrollable magnitude.

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report