A choice between flower and food

The `seizure’ of the rose consignment from Bangalore was essentially a fallout of the stiff competition in trade. After all, on a Valentine’s Day, roses from India would have certainly had the price advantage, directly cutting into the profits of the French companies. By terming the Indian rose consignment as `fake’, the French companies have conveyed the message loud and clear. All that they need is royalty for the seed supplied. It is, however, another matter that these companies knew all along that India does not offer any `protection’ on plant seeds in the absence of IPR on agricultural and horticultural varieties.

Europe had all these years ensured that the Indian flower industry at best infiltrates the secondary flower market. But when the Indian flower exporters, despite a 14 percent custom duty on Indian flowers, began competing for a share in the primary markets, there was enough reason for an alarm. And what betterway to nip the flower trade in the bud than to invoke the infringement clause of the IPR regime. Incidentally, much of the cut-flower cultivation in India is at present from the imported varieties that came into the country after the National Seed Policy was relaxed in 1988.

So far the European strategy has paid well. Intensive floriculture had ruined their land, rendering it unfit for cultivation. Pesticides and chemical fertilisers have led to severe environmental pollution and contamination of ground water resulting in health hazards. And yet, to retain its prime position in flower cultivation, many European countries, notably Holland, Germany and France, found a simple way out. Knowing that countries like India were in a desperate need of foreign investment, the flower industry was very conveniently translocated offshore.

Once Indian flowers became a threat to Europe’s indigenous flower industry, patent violations are being used to deny access to its lucrative markets. In any case, the patent threatcomes at a time when the emergence of commercial floriculture had begun to show its negative impact leaving a trail of environmental destruction. With two pesticides sprays every week and more than 47 tonnes of chemical fertilisers and 108 tonnes of manure per hectare added to the flower beds, environmental degradation is shocking by all standards. In addition, excessive use of groundwater at 212 acre inches per hectare is four times more than what is required for food crops.

To say that rose cultivation is still more profitable than farming is to overlook the ground realities. In an eye-opening study, Dr T.N. Prakash and Dr Tejaswini of the University of Agricultural Sciences at Bangalore have shown that an additional 4,274 tonnes of foodgrains and almost two lakh labour days could be generated if the resources and capital employed in one hectare of rose cultivation was to be diverted towards food crops. After the net foreign exchange earnings from one hectare under rose cultivation is considered, only1256 tonnes of foodgrains can be imported — thereby clearly establishing the economic viability and social necessity of foodgrains over flower cultivation.

Sharma is the author of `GATT to WTO: Seeds of Despair’