134
6 India’s Bioeconomy and the Ambition over “Wastelands”
Both feedstock cultivation strategies—on public-owned “wastelands” or under
contract farming with smallholders—have allocated decision-making to government agencies and private industries. Cultivation plans have usually been developed
without any consultation with local stakeholders, and agency or company interaction
with rural communities is frequently limited to convincing them to grow feedstock
(see also Biswas et al. 2010). Some smallholders (e.g., in Rajasthan) knew jatropha
and were aware that it would not grow well without water and easily attract pests such
as plant bugs and rats. This previous knowledge was a reason for local resistance to
jatropha deployment. Furthermore, with biodiesel industries frequently positioned
as the single buyers in a given region, it alone decides how much will be paid per kilo
of seed, or the chemical inputs to be used, thus benefiting from a monopsony. These
inputs usually are all purchased from the company using loans that small farmers
can take from public banks, using the land as collateral and having the company
as a guarantor. Such public loans often cannot be accessed without the company
(Pal and Ghosh 2007). As such, the farmer often is virtually powerless in the whole
process. Even though the rural poor are supposed to be significant beneficiaries, their
involvement is only that of a workforce—they have had no say in what, where, or
how feedstock is grown, let alone participation in value-added processes.
6.2.2 Access to Resources: Land, Water, Food and Energy
Despite its economic growth, India has high poverty levels and problems of access
to basic resources. By 2019 it still ranked 129th in the human development index,
fifty positions behind Brazil and eighteen behind Indonesia (UNDP 2019). Land
tenure security is uncertain even though hundreds of millions of people depend on
land and agriculture. More than 82 million Indians lack access to safe drinking water
(WHO/UNICEF 2019), 194 million are food insecure (FAO 2019), and 74 million
live without electricity (IEA 2019).
Biofuel policies have mostly aggravated these problems instead of helping to
address them. As the sugarcane crop area has increased only slightly over the last
20 years (Directorate of Economics and Statistics 2019), ethanol production has not
significantly impacted access. However, the targeting of “available” “wastelands”
based on satellite imagery and remote sensing for biodiesel feedstock cultivation
has been problematic as it overlooks local resource use. About 25% of India’s
rural population lives on resources from such lands, especially tribal communities
(Agoramoorthy et al. 2009). This reliance includes, for instance, shifting agriculture,
use as grazing areas for livestock, gathering of fuelwood, aromatic herbs and medicinal plants, or other uses linked to local food and income security (FIAN and HBF
India 2008; Rajagopal 2008). In some cases, “wastelands” are part of complex traditional farming systems, such as when livestock grazing produces animal dung that
is washed downhill and used as a fertilizer for cultivation—local land-use systems
that are not captured by satellite imagery.
6 India’s Bioeconomy and the Ambition over “Wastelands”
Both feedstock cultivation strategies—on public-owned “wastelands” or under
contract farming with smallholders—have allocated decision-making to government agencies and private industries. Cultivation plans have usually been developed
without any consultation with local stakeholders, and agency or company interaction
with rural communities is frequently limited to convincing them to grow feedstock
(see also Biswas et al. 2010). Some smallholders (e.g., in Rajasthan) knew jatropha
and were aware that it would not grow well without water and easily attract pests such
as plant bugs and rats. This previous knowledge was a reason for local resistance to
jatropha deployment. Furthermore, with biodiesel industries frequently positioned
as the single buyers in a given region, it alone decides how much will be paid per kilo
of seed, or the chemical inputs to be used, thus benefiting from a monopsony. These
inputs usually are all purchased from the company using loans that small farmers
can take from public banks, using the land as collateral and having the company
as a guarantor. Such public loans often cannot be accessed without the company
(Pal and Ghosh 2007). As such, the farmer often is virtually powerless in the whole
process. Even though the rural poor are supposed to be significant beneficiaries, their
involvement is only that of a workforce—they have had no say in what, where, or
how feedstock is grown, let alone participation in value-added processes.
6.2.2 Access to Resources: Land, Water, Food and Energy
Despite its economic growth, India has high poverty levels and problems of access
to basic resources. By 2019 it still ranked 129th in the human development index,
fifty positions behind Brazil and eighteen behind Indonesia (UNDP 2019). Land
tenure security is uncertain even though hundreds of millions of people depend on
land and agriculture. More than 82 million Indians lack access to safe drinking water
(WHO/UNICEF 2019), 194 million are food insecure (FAO 2019), and 74 million
live without electricity (IEA 2019).
Biofuel policies have mostly aggravated these problems instead of helping to
address them. As the sugarcane crop area has increased only slightly over the last
20 years (Directorate of Economics and Statistics 2019), ethanol production has not
significantly impacted access. However, the targeting of “available” “wastelands”
based on satellite imagery and remote sensing for biodiesel feedstock cultivation
has been problematic as it overlooks local resource use. About 25% of India’s
rural population lives on resources from such lands, especially tribal communities
(Agoramoorthy et al. 2009). This reliance includes, for instance, shifting agriculture,
use as grazing areas for livestock, gathering of fuelwood, aromatic herbs and medicinal plants, or other uses linked to local food and income security (FIAN and HBF
India 2008; Rajagopal 2008). In some cases, “wastelands” are part of complex traditional farming systems, such as when livestock grazing produces animal dung that
is washed downhill and used as a fertilizer for cultivation—local land-use systems
that are not captured by satellite imagery.