Content uploaded by Viswanathan P. Karthiayani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Viswanathan P. Karthiayani on Sep 30, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Pesticide Applications in BT cotton Farms: Issues Relating to
Environment and Non Tariff Barriers
N. Lalitha and P K Viswanathan
Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad
A Research Paper Submitted to the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Indian Society of
Ecological Economics
1. Introduction
There are about 40 million farmers cultivating cotton on approximately 9 million hectares in
India. A widely quoted statistics points out that cotton cultivation in India which accounts for
about 5 per cent of the total land under cultivation uses nearly 50 per cent of the pesticides
produced in India. Production of cotton in India which was at 142.3 lakh bales in 1996-97
dropped to 86.24 lakh bales in 2002-03 and increased steeply to reach 258.06 lakh bales in 2007-
08 (advance estimates, as on 9 July 2008)
1
. While the recent introduction of Bt cotton in all the
cotton growing regions have contributed significantly to the rise in yield. Gujarat with 2.5
million hectares under cotton accounts for 28 per cent of the total land under cotton in India.
With the increase in cotton cultivation, pesticide consumption is expected to rise as cotton is
susceptible to both bollworms and sucking pests. While the adoption of Bt cotton is supposed to
give protection against the bollworm, it does not offer any protection against the sucking pests
2
.
Continuous use of pesticides besides increasing the cost of cultivation does irreversible damage
on environment as well as on health of human being and livestock. An additional impact to be
added to this list is the potential of affecting the trade prospects due to the pesticide residue in
agricultural products. The new dimension of the pesticide impact is on trade that comes in the
form of non tariff barriers or sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) that are known as
technical barriers to trade. Non Tariff Measures (NTMs) are all measures other than normal
tariffs namely trade related procedures, regulations, standards, licensing systems and even trade
defense measures such as anti-dumping duties etc which have the effect of restricting trade
between nations. With India’s cotton exports on the rise recently, this paper attempts to
understand (a) and to analyse the use of pesticide on cotton in Gujarat and the possible impact on
health and environment (b) trends in cotton exports and the applicability of non-tariff measures.
In doing so the second section following this introduction discusses the introduction of Bt cotton
in in Gujarat. The third section discusses the pesticide use pattern among the Bt cotton
cultivators in Gujarat. The fourth section examines how the SPS measures could affect or are
affecting the trade presently and the fifthe section presents the conclusion.
1
Agriculture statistics division, GOI available at
http://dacnet.nic.in/eands/Advance_Estimate/4_advance_2007-08.pdf
(accessed on 27th Sep, 2008).
2
The double bt introduced in 2007 is supposed to provide protection against both bollworm and sucking
pests.
2
2. Cotton scenario in Gujarat:
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
199
1
-92
1992
-9
3
1
9
9
3
-9
4
1
9
9
4
-9
5
1995-96
1996-
9
7
1
9
9
7
-9
8
200
3
-04
2004
-0
5
2
0
0
5
-0
6
2
0
0
6
-0
7
2007-08
Year
Area deshi hybrid Bt
Deshi area
in hec
Hybrid area
in hec
BT area in
hec
Total cotton
area in hec
Area under cotton in Gujarat (hec)
Compiled from Season and crop report from 1991-92-1997-98 and data from 2003-04 were
obtained from the Department of Agriculture, Government of Gujarat
Gujarat has the credit of developing the first cotton hybrid in the ‘70s. Total area under hybrids
increased from 7.13 lakh hectares in 1991-92 to 11.47 hectares in 1997-98. In 2007-08, the area
under hybrids estimated to be 5.4 hectares. On the whole, the percentage change in the area
under hybrid cotton declined negatively by -22.9 per cent. As compared to this, the desi cotton
which was planted in 7.87 lakh hectares in 1991-92 declined over a period of time to 6.6 lakh
hectares in 2007-08 or to the extent of 15 per cent over this period. The desi variety or the
G.Arboreum variety is known for its drought tolerance and resistance to pests. On the other hand,
American cottons usually have long and extra long staple and better spinning potential (higher
counts) than desi cottons. They were introduced in India by the colonial administrators to meet
the demands of English textile manufacturers anxious to secure an alternative and cheaper source
than from the United States (Guha, 2007).
As compared to this the G.Hirsutom-hybrid varieties which were much sought after by the
farmers are long staple varieties and are susceptible to both sucking pests and bollworms. In
2002, Government of India provided approval for the introduction of three Bt cotton varieties
viz, Mech 161, Mech 112 and Mech 184 including in the state of Gujarat. By the time the
approved varieties were planted in Gujarat in 2002, it came to limelight that the farmers were
also planting on a large scale another Bt variety that was not commercially approved by the
Government of India. While the widespread adoption could not be prevented as farmers found
the yield difference between the approved and unapproved variety to be negligible (Lalitha etal
2007a, 2007b), yet it has nevertheless contributed to bringing in more area under Bt cotton
cultivation which has increased from 2.34 lakh hectares in 2003-04 to 13 lakh hectares in 2007-
08 bringing about 453.8 per cent rise in the area under Bt and thereby the area under cotton
3
increased by 67.56 percent from 1991-92 – 2007-08. In 2005, the Government of India approved
more Bt varieties for commercial cultivation and thus there were 70 Bt varieties available before
farmers in the central region (which includes Gujarat) to choose in 2007.
While the statistics presented above give the total area under Bt cultivation, the data collected
from the primary survey present an interesting picture.
Chart 2
Area under varieties of cotton in Gujarat
Area Under Cotton in Gujarat
Source: Data from the primary survey carried out by GIDR
Note Y axis acres in 00, desi include hybrid varieties as well.
This chart denotes that in 2003-04 when the hybrids and desi varieties were still occupying a
larger share of land as compared unapproved Bt and the area under the approved Bt was small.
However, after the initial success of the unapproved variety, area under unapproved variety
increased tremendously in 2005-06. Nevertheless, slashing of the price of the approved variety to
Rs.750 in 2005 from Rs1600 that was prevalent from 2002 and the availability of more choices
to the farmers have resulted in the area under approved Bt cotton also to improve which is
reflecting in the reduced acreage under desi and hybrid variety.
Bacillus Thuringencis (BT) is a naturally occurring bacterium that acts against the bollworm.
Plant biotechnology has enabled that the BT trait is introduced in the plant itself through the
seeds, by which the entire plant acts against the pests. The main advantage of BT cotton is
believed to be of its trait –the Cry 1 gene that protects the crop from bollworm, tobacco
budworm, pink bollworm, which are the major pests that attack cotton in all the cotton
cultivating parts of the world. Recognizing the ineffectiveness of the Cry 1 gene on the whole
range of sucking pests, scientists have now introduced the double BT which is supposed to
provide protection against both bollworms and the sucking pests as well. Therefore if the
benefits of the Bt cotton is fully derived, via reduction in the use of pesticide, it would definitely
help the farmer to produce a better quality output that would fetch him a better price in the
market. Indirectly, the reduction in the pesticide use would prevent the possible land degradation
and water contamination. Due to this potential advantage on cost of cultivation by reducing the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
approved
unapproved
desi
4
pesticide use and further on health and environment, farmers in many countries have started
adopting Bt cotton. Area under genetically modified crops increased from a mere 1.7 million
hectare in 1996 to 100 million hectares in 2006.
The literature in the context of India presents mixed evidence on use of pesticide against cotton.
For instance, Kranthi et al (2005) observe that the commercial Bt cotton hybrids introduced in
India, express less than the critical levels of Cry1Ac gene required for full protection against
bollworms late in the season and in some plant parts. They report that the “data available support
the presumption that Bt cotton hybrids in India may require more supplemental insecticide
sprays than being used in Bt cotton varieties elsewhere in the world”. But in the context of India,
studies that have been carried out so far have tend to analyse the pesticide use on Bt vs. on Bt
and not have focused on the varietal differences within Bt or hybrids. Further systematic analysis
of the sprays during the different stages of plant life is also lacking. Limitations apart, these
studies indicate
Assessing the impact of Bt cotton in China, Pray et al (2001) observe that the Bt cultivators
could substantially reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides to control bollworm during the
middle and late part of the season. Their study carried out during 1999, notes that majority of the
farmers reduced the number of sprays from 12 to 3 or 4 sprays. Hence, assuming that 320,000
hectares were under Bt cotton cultivation, it had resulted in reduction in the pesticide use by
15,000 tons. Their study (2003) observes that reduction has also occurred in organophosphates
some of which are banned due to their adverse impact on health and environment.
Edge et al (2002) observe “production of the Bt protein by bollgard cotton reduces and in some
cases eliminates the need to spray for major caterpillar and other lepidopteron pests such as
cotton leaf perforator, cabbage lopper, cotton leaf worm, and European corn borer and salt marsh
caterpillar. These additional benefits include reduced risk to growers health, improved
environment for beneficial insects and farmland wildlife and a more stable economic outlook for
the cotton industry’’ (p.123).
Their reviews observe that the total number of spray reductions per hectare for all arthropod
pests ranged from 1.0 to 7.7 sprays and an average reduction of 3.5 sprays per hectare was
achieved by Bt cultivators, which had resulted in an estimated loss of $200 to $300 million a
year for the pesticide manufacturers. Hence, assuming an average reduction of 2.2 sprays
hectare on the 972,000 hectare cotton produced in 1998 in the US, they conclude that 962 280
KG insecticide active ingredient did not enter the environment and local watersheds thus
reducing the potential exposure to non-target animals.
Qaim’s study (2001) using the field trial data of Mahyco-Monsanto clearly brings out the cost
advantages of Bt cotton particularly in pesticide reduction over hybrids and conventional cotton
variety. Indira et al’s(2004) study (survey of farmers who had participated in the trials) shows
that though the pest load was generally higher in 2001, it was lower in the Bt crop compared to
non Bt and the check variety.
Similarly, Qaim and Janvry (2005) report that in Argentina on an average, Bt farmers used 50
per cent less insecticides on their Bt plots than on plots grown with conventional cotton. Almost
5
all the reductions occurred in a highly toxic chemical, which emphasizes the positive effect of Bt
on the environment. Naik et al’s (2005) study carried out in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh for the 2002 season indicates that Bt cotton required 2.6 times less
pesticide sprays than conventional cotton, which has a positive impact on yield due to less crop
losses. However, these savings in pesticide reduction did not compensate the higher seed costs
that the farmers spent on Bt seeds.
In South Africa, on an average, Bt variety reduced the number of insecticide sprays to three.
Though the Bt adaptors still sprayed against pests such as ashids, jassids and thrips, yet the
reduction of three sprays for bollworm will reduce the costs, amount of labour and the distance
walked carrying the knapsack (Bennett et al, 2006). Narayanamurthy and Kalamkar (2006)
analysed the performance of Bt cotton in two districts of Maharashtra. Their analysis of inputs on
Mech 184 and Mech 162 compared to other non-bt varieties shows that Mech 184 consumed less
pesticide as compared to Mech 162 and both the Bt varieties together consumed more pesticides
than the non-bt varieties.
Mahendra Dev etal’s study (2006) carried out in four districts of Andhra Pradesh point out that
since farmers use insecticides as a precautionary measure or on noticing any pests on the plants
without any regard to the threshold limits of the pests. Hence, the cost of insecticide is likely to
be more than the benefit it provides. Nevertheless their study proves that the cost of insecticide
in Bt cotton reduced by 18.2 per cent over non-Bt cotton and the number of sprays on an average
have reduced from 12 in nonBt cotton to 9 in Bt cotton.
Gandhi et als study carried out in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu
observes that adoption of Bt cotton has resulted in significant reduction in cost of pesticide as
much as 36 per cent in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and in Tamil Nadu 50 per cent
reduction was observed the number of sprays reduced in Bt. They observed that Bt cotton
provides resistance to bollworm as well as other sucking pests.
Lalitha and Ramaswami (2007) analyzing the pesticide use among the cotton cultivators in
Gujarat during the kharif 2003-04, observe that approved variety required as many as 6.3 number
of sprays per hectare, while hybrids and unapproved required an average of 5.9 and 4.6 sprays
respectively. Desi cotton required the least of just 0.25 sprays. Of the total of 1926 sprays on the
cotton crop, 675 or 35 per cent has been sprayed against bollworm, 48 per cent for sucking pests
and the rest 17 per cent for the other pests. Thus during 2003-04, it emerges that farmers had to
spray an average of 1.8 times on sucking pests as compared to 1.3 times on boll worm, which is
perhaps the positive impact of Bt technology.
The different studies that have been carried out in India point to the fact that since, majority of
farmers spray pesticides as a precaution, expenditure on pesticides continued to be incurred by
the farmers, yet in comparison with the non-bt the costs have been lower in Bt. But in countries
other than India where pesticide cost is always higher, farmers have found it advantageous to
cultivate Bt cotton. With this background, in the following pages, we discuss the pesticide use
scenario among the cotton cultivators in Gujarat.
6
3. Pesticide Use Scenario in Gujarat
The required information has been collected through a primary survey carried out by GIDR
during Kharif 2007-08. This study was conducted in five districts of Gujarat, namely Rajkot,
Bhavnagar, Baroda, Surendranagar and Ahmedabad from where a sample of 200 farmers were
randomly drawn. The required information was collected by canvassing a detailed questionnaire
with each of the chosen farmer.
Table 1
Area under cotton by varieties (in acres)
Variety Total %
approved
813.56 37.9
unapproved
1154.96 53.96
desi
172.9 8.07
Total
2141.42 100
Source: Primary survey
In the chosen five districts, Bt adoption is nearly complete with 91 per cent of the area under Bt
cotton. However, the area under the approved variety is less than the area under the unapproved
variety (Table 1).
As per the biosafety regulations, companies selling Bt cotton seeds are required to sell a small
packet of non-bt seeds of 120grams along with the regular Bt cotton seeds (which are packed to
gather). These are called refuge seeds. The purpose of growing refuge is to delay the bollworm
resistance to Bt. For effective protection, farmers are supposed to grow these non-bt seeds as a
border to the Bt cotton plot which is indicated in the form of a diagram in the short literature
page that accompanies the seed packet. While the approved Bt companies are required to sell
this non-bt seeds as well, the unapproved seed sellers do not sell any refuge seeds. It has been
demonstrated that wherever refuge is grown around the Bt plot, resistance to Bt is delayed and
the technology would last long for more years. However, we found that in our survey that 27.8
per cent age of the approved plots has planted refuge as well and 72.2 per cent of the plots do
not. On the other hand 3.8 per cent of the unapproved cultivators have on their own had
cultivated refuge plants.
Table 2
Percentage of Plots with Refuge
Approved Unapproved
Planted Yes 27.8 3.8
No 72.2 96.2
Total plot 223 288
7
1 Pests attack:
During the 2007-08 Kharif season, farmers reported the infestation of sucking pests on cotton
than the bollworm. In fact, farmers reported names of 12 different sucking pests and six kinds of
bollworm to be affecting the cotton crop in the current season. By and large, sucking pests and
bollworm were reported by the farmers, only 22 per cent of the farmers reported seeing any new
pests in cotton. Interestingly, among the new pests that the farmers had seen in the current season
that they had not seen five years before, mealy bug figures prominently (77% of the farmers) by
the approved, unapproved and desi cultivators. Mealy bug that falls in the category of sucking
pests, is reported to be devastating among other types of sucking pests.
II Pesticide spraying pattern
There was totally 2833 pesticide application on the total cotton crop (2141.4 acres) in the chosen
districts of Gujarat. This amounts to 1.33 sprays per acre. Of the total 2851 responses that we had
got for this issue, 2833 responses indicated pesticide spraying application ranging from 0ne to 20
times. Less than one per cent of the responses (18 responses) indicated of not spraying any type
of pesticides. Of the total sprays, approved Bt and unapproved Bt account for 44 and 54 per cent
of the sprays (1243 and 1540) respectively. But the difference is not statistically significant. The
desi cotton variety accounts for just 1. 8 per cent of the sprays.
Table 3
Mean Difference between the Approved and Unapproved Variety in Number of Sprays
Variety
No.of sprays Mean SD t Sig.
Approved 1243 3.1 1.12
Unapproved 1540 3 1.1 1.42 0.2
Among the districts, Rajkot and Bhavnagar account for 27 and 25 per cent of the share in total
number of sprays while Surendranagar rank the least with 15 per cent of the application. Among
the districts we observed that while in Rajkot number of applications on approved Bt was higher
(70per cent) than that of unapproved Bt (30 per cent), in Bhavnagar it was the reverse (22 and 78
per cent respectively). In other districts, the difference wasn’t huge like this.
Pesticide spray pattern among the different land holdings show that the number of sprays among
the marginal land holders is the highest. Does this imply that the marginal land holders take extra
care of their crop by spraying more pesticide? The mean difference between the number of
sprays between marginal and small holdings is negative and significant. But the mean difference
between the small and medium land holders is negative and insignificant.
8
Table 4
Type of Landholdings Mean N t sig
Marginal 4.89404 1057
Small 5.364204 961 -3.19 0.001
Medium 5.773537 786 -0.953 0.341
Large 4.021277 47
Total 5.280603 2851
When we examined the question of against which pest have the farmers sprayed pesticides, it
emerges that the sprays against sucking pests were more than the bollworms or those meant for
diseases etc which is true for both approved and unapproved and desi varieties. Further, the
numbers of sprays drastically rise after the first month of plant life in both approved and
unapproved variety. It is true for the desi variety as well. Secondly, the incidence of bollworm
attack appears to emerge only after the first month in both the variety. Interestingly whereas the
application for bollworm in approved almost stops after 150 days (except for the 3 sprays after
180 days), in unapproved variety it goes on till 180 days. For the desi variety, though it is a long
duration one, yet, the need for the pesticide spray does not arise after 150 days of the plant life.
Similar pattern of spraying was observed in 2003-04 as well, where the number of applications
peaked after the first month.
Table 5
Types of Pests against which Pesticides were Sprayed during the Plant Life According to the
Variety
Approved Variety
1-30days 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 181
above
Total
Sucking pests 63 485 588 403 144 35 4 1722
Bollworm 1 37 110 84 16 0 3 251
Diseases 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Others 0 3 5 1 1 0 0 10
Nutrient 16 65 52 24 5 9 3 174
Total no. spray 55 347 426 288 93 27 7 1243
Spray Per hectare 3.77
Unapproved variety
1-30days 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 181
above
Total
Sucking pests 77 509 643 381 135 53 30 1828
Bollworm 1 48 127 92 32 11 0 311
Diseases 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Others 0 14 17 34 6 0 0 71
Nutrient 43 160 90 39 10 4 0 346
Total no. spray 85 452 518 322 107 31 15 1530
Spray Per hectare 3.3
9
Desi Variety
1-30days 31-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 181
above
Total
Sucking pests 6 18 17 13 4 58
Bollworm 2 1 1 2 0 6
Nutrient 5 7 3 1 0 16
Total no. sprays 9 16 13 9 3 50
Spray Per hectare 0.88
Spray per hectare of total 3.28
It appears that in the current season, the number of sprays per hectare on approved and
unapproved have reduced compared to the number of pesticide applications made in 2003-04
season as shown in Table 6. While for the approved variety number of sprays per hectare has
reduced from 6.3 to 3.77, in the case of unapproved variety it has reduced from 4.59 in 2003-04
to 3.3 in 2007-08. On cotton as a whole, the number of sprays per hectare has reduced from
3.81 in 2003-04 to 3.28 in 2007-08.
Table 6
Comparison of Number of Pesticide Sprays in 2003-04 and 2007-08
Approved
1-30
days
31-60 61-90 91-120 121-
150
151-
180
181
above
Total
Bollworm
8 42 52 28 14
144 -2.3
Sucking 18 62 64 27 15 186 -3
Others 6 14 22 15 8 65 -1
All Sprays 32 118 138 70 37
395 ---
All sprays per
hectare
-0.5 -1.9 -2.2 -1.1 -0.6
--- -6.3
Unapproved
Bollworm
15 97 106 52 26
296 -1.4
Sucking 47 179 174 66 45 511 -2.4
Others 17 54 60 24 16 171 -0.8
All sprays 79 330 340(1.6) 142(0.7) 87
(0.4)
978
All sprays per
hectare
-0.4 -1.5 -1.6 -0.7 -0.4
-4.59
2007-08
Approved
Sucking pests 63 485 588 403 144 35 4 1722
Bollworm 1 37 110 84 16 0 3 251
Diseases 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Others 0 3 5 1 1 0 0 10
Nutrient 16 65 52 24 5 9 3 174
total no. spray 55 347 426 288 93 27 7 1243 3.77
10
Unapproved variety
1-30
days
31-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 181
above
Total
sucking pests 77 509 643 381 135 53 30 1828
bollworm 1 48 127 92 32 11 0 311
diseases 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Others 0 14 17 34 6 0 0 71
Nutrient 43 160 90 39 10 4 0 346
total no. spray 85 452 518 322 107 31 15 1530 3.3
sprays per hectare
in total land in
2003-04
3.81
sprays per hectare
in total land in
2007-08
l land in 2007-08 3.28
3. 1 Pesticide awareness among the farmers:
In analyzing the use of pesticides, it is also essential to understand, the knowledge of the farmer
in using these products that ranges from the name of the pesticides, the ingredient, against which
pest the product is aimed at and why pesticide application is required at a particular point of
time, impact of pesticide use on health etc. In the following pages information on some of these
aspects is analysed.
In all the farmers reported 244 names of pesticides which mostly consisted of the trade or brand
names. It is a common practice among the farmers to use combinations of chemicals when they
apply pesticide, which according to the entomologists should not be done. Chemicals should not
be used in combinations as it will work against control of pests. This is because, if a pest is
resistant to one chemical, it would become resistant to the entire combinations that has been used
and if farmers are not aware of this they would spray more pesticides. In our survey we found
that there just 20 per cent of the total sprays which had used just one ingredient. 52 per cent have
used two chemicals (Table 7). Perhaps because of this reason the number of sprays in general is
rising and on sucking pests it is more.
Table 7
Combination of Chemicals Used by Gujarat Farmers
Combination Responses %
No pesticide
25 0.9
One chemical
569 20.0
Two chemicals
1483 52.0
Three chemicals
622 21.8
Four chemicals
118 4.1
Five chemicals
31 1.1
Seven chemicals
3 0.1
Total
2851 100.0
11
We could match about 50 per cent of the names available with the active ingredients with the
WHO classification of pesticides. Accordingly we have classified the pesticides, provided in
Table 8.
Classification of pesticides that are reported to be used in Gujarat
Classification Number of
Pesticides
%
Class 1a(WHO) 6 2.45
Class 1b(WHO) 19 7.78
Class 2(WHO) 66 27.04
Class 3(WHO) 19 7.78
O(WHO) 5 2.04
U(WHO) 15 6.14
Not available 113 46.31
Not classifiable 1 0.4
Total pesticides reported 244 100
Note: Class 1a, 1b, 2, 3, O and U refer to extremely hazardous, highly hazardous, moderately
hazardous, slightly hazardous, obsolete as pesticide and unlikely to cause any hazard in
normal use.
Presently 37 per cent of the pesticides used by the farmers are coming under the first three
categories with majority belonging to the moderately hazardous group. Further a small
percentage of 2 per cent of the pesticides fall in the obsolete category, which when used in
combination with any other chemical might nullify the chemical effects, thus necessitating more
sprays.
We have arrived at a short list of pesticides that were found to be common for all the three
varieties and which appeared to be popular among the farmers in terms of their frequent
application (Table 9). It shows that except for Acepahte which is considered to be slightly
hazardous for humans and environment by WHO, the rest either fall in highly hazardous or
moderately hazardous category. Particularly Monocrotophos which is the favorite of the farmers
comes under the highly hazardous category and is also banned under the UN PIC (prior informed
consent). According to the PIC convention export of a chemical can take place only with the
prior informed consent of the importing country. The PIC procedure is a means of formally
obtaining and disseminating decisions of importing countries as to know whether they wish to
receive further shipment of a particular chemical and for ensuring compliance to these decisions
by the exporting countries. The aim is to promote a shared responsibility between exporting and
importing countries in protecting the humans and environment about the harmful effect of the
chemicals (WHO 2004, P.no.39.).
12
Table 10
Use of Pesticides in Varieties
Classification Approved Unapproved Desi Total
Name of pesticide Pesticide
group
WHO
Class
Monocrotophus OP, 1b 502 510 21 1033
Acephate Op Class3 330 689 29 1048
Confidor Neonicotinoids Class2 245 240 11 496
Acetamapride Neonicotinoid NA 183 128 2 313
Imidacrop Neonicotinoid Class2 156 165 3 324
Computor Neonicotinoid Class2 62 217 0 279
Ektara 75 82 1 158
Endosulphun OC Class2 124 134 5 263
Starthion OP Class3 101 18 0 119
Prophanophus OP Class2 37 40 0 77
Compiled from the number of insecticides used per spray
Note: OP, OC refer to organophosphate, organochlorin.
Note: 1b highly hazardous, class 2 moderately hazardous and class 3 slightly hazardous.
Table 10a
Quantity of Pesticides used per acre
Liter per acre Powder per acre
Approved 1.35 0.78
Unapproved 0.98 0.59
Desi 0.40 0.14
In quantity terms, in all, the approved variety cultivators have used more quantity of pesticides in
their farms than others. Desi farmers have used the least due to the nature of the cotton itself.
Assessing the need to spray pesticides
98.4 of the responses indicated that farmers visited the field to observe whether there was any
need to spray pesticides. This visit indicated the intensity of pests for the farmers as evident from
the table. Both approved and unapproved variety cultivators indicated that the pest intensity was
high which necessitated spraying of pesticides, as indicated by the curling of the leaves in
majority of the cases prompted them to spray pesticides.
13
Table 11
Intensity of Pests Before Spraying Pesticide by Variety
Approved % Unapproved % Desi %
High 776 63.1 925 61.3 18 38.3
Medium 276 22.5 348 23.0 27 57.4
Low 151 12.3 225 14.9 2 4.3
Don’t know 19 1.5 12 0.8 0 0.0
No pests 7 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 1229 100.0 1510 100.0 47 100.0
Mean 1.54 1.56
Tstat* -0.631
Sig -0.53
Mean difference between the intensity of pests between approved and unapproved variety
indicate that the intensity of pests between the two varieties is not significant.
Table 12
Farmers Responses on Effectiveness of the pesticide application.
Seed Variety
Approved Unapproved Desi Total
Pesticide spraying was effective 1 1017 1370 35 2422
Not effective 2 213 156 12 381
Don’t know 3 11 2 0 13
Total 1241 1528 47 2816
Mean 1.19 1.1
T 5.968*
Significant at 1% level.
Majority of the responses indicated that the pesticide application had been effective in all the
varieties, and the intensity of the pests did decrease after the application as indicated by the
intensity of the pests after the pesticide application is reported to be less by at least 62.5 and 54.5
per cent of the approved and unapproved Bt cultivators (Table 13).
14
Table 13
Intensity of the pests after pesticide application
% % %
Approved Unapproved Desi
High 17.8 23.0 0.0
Medium 16.0 18.5 14.3
Less 62.5 54.5 80.0
Don’t know 2.9 2.0 0.0
The pests are not seen 0.8 1.9 5.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
The responses from the farmers on who prompted them to spray pesticide demolished our
opinion that farmers go by the suggestion of the pesticide dealers (Table 14). While this could be
true for deciding on the product to be applied, the decision to spray pesticide appears to be taken
by the farmers in 67 per cent of the cases. Though discussion with farmers and the visit to the
dealers shop also seem to influence the decision, yet the role of gramsevak in informing the
farmers about the need to spray appears to be very minimal as evident from Table 14.
Table 14
Decision to spray application made by (%)
Approved Unapproved Desi Total
Self 67.6 66.5 57.1 66.8
Discussion with farmer 1.1 6.1 7.7 4.0
After visiting the field 20.6 15.4 19.8 17.7
After visiting the field/dealer 9.5 11.1 14.3 10.5
gramsevak 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.8
owner 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Knowledge about the pesticide products among the farmers:
Table 15
Hazard indicator Approved Unapproved Desi
Red 37.9 41.9 62.5
Green 23.4 20.2 18.75
Yellow 29.4 25.8 6.25
.Blue 5.1 12.1 6.25
.Don’t know 4.2 0.0 6.25
Total 100.0 100.0 100
Red, yellow, blue and green are the colours that are used to indicate the hazard of pesticides on
the cover. They indicate the extreme hazard, highly hazard, moderately hazard and slightly
15
hazard nature respectively. In all 50 per cent of the farmers had observed the color indicator on
the pesticide pack which indicates the level of hazardous of the product inside. While most of the
farmers responded correctly about the red and green indication, 23 per cent of the farmers
thought that yellow are not harmful.
In spite of seeing the hazard indicator on the pack, only 52 percent of the farmers in all (57, 52
and 52 per cent of the responses from the approved, unapproved and desi cultivators) said that
they take some precautions while spraying pesticides. These precautions range from wearing
gloves to not eating while spraying pesticides. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that only 50
per cent of the responses from the three variety cultivators indicated that wearing face masks
(covering the mouth and nose with a piece of cloth) appear to be the most used precaution as
compared to wearing gloves or wearing goggles while spraying pesticide. However a very small
number of farmers (7 out of 200) reported getting unwell after spraying pesticide. Skin irritation
is the most observed impact (44%) on farmers who spray pesticides. However, none of the
symptoms were serious according to the farmers to get medical attention immediately and hence
there is no medical expenditure reported or man days lost due to sickness. Similarly none of the
farmers reported any adverse impact on the environment due to pesticide use. It is also a
limitation of the study since we stopped with asking the farmers about the `observed’
environmental impact like hardening of the land, reduction in the beneficial insects etc and have
not undertaken any scientific testing of the water or land to prove the adverse impact of the
pesticides.
Thus the foregoing analysis of the pesticide use among the cotton cultivators in Gujarat indicate,
the adoption of Bt is almost complete in the chosen districts. While the number of sprays against
bollworm is less as compared to the sucking pests, yet, farmers use a combination of pesticides
and a few of them ranging from most hazardous to moderately hazardous. Perhaps because the
pesticides are used in combinations, the effect is not vigorous thus making the farmers to go for
repeated applications.
4. Export of Cotton from India and NTBs.
India is one of the eight largest importers of cotton and the dominant exporters are United States,
Uzbekistan, Francophone Africa and Australia which account for more than two thirds of global
exports. Export of cotton from India is regulated by the Ministry of Textiles based on the
availability for domestic use. Presently it is deregulated. The import of cotton is under open
general license with 10 per cent of import duty. The quantity of raw cotton imported came down
from 22 lakh bales in 2001-02 to 6 lakh bales in 2004-05. At the same time exports increased
from 0.6 lakh bales in 2001-02 to 20 lakh bales in 2004-05’ (GOI, 2006, Table 16). While the
increase in production contributed by the Bt adoption in different states is one of the reasons,
favorable monsoon and weather conditions have also helped the farmer to reap a better harvest
than that they have realized a few years back. It is in this context, that we look at the pesticide
use pattern in Bt with concern. As shown in the analysis, though the number of sprays against
bollworm is less than the sucking pests, the pesticide Monocrotophus which is banned in many
countries and under the UN PIC is being used the most by the farmers. The permissible
Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) of monocrotophus in cottonseed and cotton seed oil (raw) is 0.1
and 0.05 respectively (Mukhopadhyay, 2003). We are not sure with the most number of farmers
16
using monocrotophus, what would be the residue limit of this and the other pesticides that we
have listed under the different hazard category on cotton and other products of cotton.
Table 16
Export and Import of Cotton
Year Export Import
1996-97 16.82 0.30
1997-98 3.50 4.13
1998-99 1.01 7.87
1999-00 0.65 22.01
00-01 0.60 22.0
01-02 1.0 16.0
02-03 0.84 17.67
03-04 13.25 7.21
04-05 (anticipated) 20.00 6.0
Quantity in lakh bales
Source: Government of India (2006)
Presently India has been exporting cotton to various countries including the US. Table 17
provides the information the destination of India’s cotton exports.
As trade is expanding the fear is the imposition of non-tariff barriers on the cotton exports from
India based on the types of pesticides used or pesticides residue in the cotton. Non tariff barriers
could be in the form of product standards, process standards, registration and certification and
testing. Vietnam and Philippines require the exporters to give report on the chemistry of the
product and toxicity of the product in the case of pesticides and fine chemicals. Toxicity tests are
conducted over a period of time and may take up to two years. Presently toxicity studies are
asked only by Vietnam and Philippines and exporters from India find it time consuming and
unviable to trade with these countries. Simlarly process standards concerning yarn are required
by Singapore (Saqib and Taneja, 2005). India has been exporting cotton to Vietnam (Table 17)
which has increased from 0.14 per cent in 1993-94 to 3.52 in 2006-07. Singapore on the other
hand has declined from 1.17 to 0.18 during the same period.
An analysis by Rajesh Mehta (2005) shows the Index Frequency Ratio of woven apparel, knit
apparel and the textile floor coverings in the US alone amounts 19, 7 and 1 per cent respectively
where the Index of frequency ratio is defined as the number of products or product lines that are
subject to NTBs in the given class to the total of number of commodities in that class. As Table
17 indicates, India’s cotton export to the US has been fluctuating. The textile products from India
that use Azo dyes and pentachlorophenol have also been banned in a few countries. These
indicate that cotton and cotton textile products could be subject to NTBs more in the days to
come if India’s cotton production continues to increase. Hence, India should take suitable
measures to ensure that cotton exports from India do not suffer due to lack of standards.
17
5. Conclusion
This paper focused on the pesticide use scenario among Bt cotton cultivators in Gujarat, exports
from India and the prevalence of non-tariff measures in cotton. The analysis indicates that
farmers use a variety of pesticide that range from extremely hazard to moderately hazard in their
effect. Acephate and Monocrotophus are the most used pesticide by the farmers. While
Acephate falls in the slightly hazardous category of WHO, monocrotophus falls in the highly
hazardous category. They use different combinations of chemicals also during spraying. During
the kharif 2007-08, the incidence of bollworm was less, while the infestation of sucking pests
was more necessitating more sprays on sucking pests. We are not sure whether it is due to the (a)
ineffectiveness of chemicals that the farmers have to resort to more number of applications or (b)
the chemical combinations that they use make the sprays in effective. Perhaps due to this, the
farmers have not observed any adverse health impact or environmental impact.
India has been witnessing a rise in export of cotton in the recent years. With more number of
countries adopting NTBs to prevent imports, cotton with more use of pesticides could be subject
to NTBs in the days to come. Hence, if India needs to sustain its exports to other countries,
measures need to be introduced to curb pesticide use by inducing more awareness regarding
pesticide use and integrated pest management programmes in cotton cultivation. The health and
environmental hazards of pesticides are known and only more awareness could lead to reduction
in the use and safe use of pesticides that will lead to quality cotton being exported from India.
18
References
Baffes John, Cotton,(2004) Market Setting, trade policies and Issues, World Bank , World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 3218, Feb.
CMIE, 1997, Foreign Trade, November
CMIE (2007), Foreign Trade and Balance of Payments, August.
Edge Julie, Benedict John, Carroll John, and Reding Keith, (2001), `Bollgard Cotton: An
Assessment of Global Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits’, The Journal of Cotton
Science, 5(2). P.121-136.
Gandhi Vasant and Namboodiri (2006), The Adoption and Economics of Bt Cotton in India-
Preliminary Results from a study, WP2006-09-04, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
Government of India (2006) Report of the fact finding team on Vidharbha to study the causes of
regional disparities and rural distress in Maharashtra with particular reference to Vidharbha,
Report submitted to the Planning Commission, GOI, May.
Guha, Sumit, (2007), “Genetic change and colonial cotton improvement in 19th and 20th century
India” Forthcoming in Ranjan Chakrabarti ed. Situating Environmental History Delhi: Manohar
Publications 2007
Hayee Abdul Cultivation of Bt Cotton- Pakistans experience, available at
www.actionaid.org/pakistan.
Indira A, Bhagwan M R, Virgin, I, (2005)`Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety in
India:Expectations, Outcomes and Lessons’, Stockholm Environment Research Institute,
Stockholm, April.
Kranthi K R, Naidu S et al (2005), ` Temporal and Intra-plant Variability of Cry1Ac Expression
in Bt cotton and its Influence on the Survival of the Cotton Bollworm, Helicoverpa, Armigena
(Hubner) (Noctuidae;Lepidoptera), Current Science, Vol.89, No.2, July.
Lalitha N and Ramaswami Bharat, (2007) `Pesticide Use Pattern Among Cotton Cultivators in
Gujarat’ in Frontiers of Agricultural Development in Gujarat (ed) Dholakia Ravindra, Centre for
Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, June 2007.
Mahendra Dev and Chandrasekhara Rao, (2007) Socio Economic Impact of Bt Cotton, CESS
Monograph No.3, Centre for Economic and Social Studies Hyderabad, November.
Mehta Rajesh (2005), `Non Tariff Barriers Affecting India’s Exports’ RIS Discussion Paper
no.97, Research and Information System for Developing Countries, New Delhi.
19
Mukhopadhyay, (2003) , ` Pesticide Usage Scenario in India and Viable Alternatives’, Voluntary
Health Association of India, New Delhi.
Narayanamurthy A and Kalamkar S `Is Bt cotton cultivation economically viable for Indian
farmers? An Empirical Analysis’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol, 41, No.26, June 30, 2006
Pray Carl, Ma Danmeng, Huang Jikun and Qiao Fangbin (2001), ` Impact of Bt Cotton in
China’, World Development, Vol.29, No.5, pp 813-825.
Saqib Mohammad and Taneja (2005), ` Non-Tariff Barriers and India's Exports: The Case of
Asean and Srilanka’, Working Paper no.165, ICRIER,New Delhi.
Shetty P K (2004), `Socio-Ecological Implications of Pesticide Use in India’, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol39, No.39, PP 5261-67.
Qaim Matin and Janvry Alain De (2005), `Bt Cotton and Pesticide Use in Argentina: Economic
and Enviornmental Effects’, Environment and Development Economics 10, 179-200
Qaim Matin, Naik Gopal, Subramanian Arjunan and Zilberman David (2005), `Bt Cotton
Controversy: Some Paradoxes Explained’, Economic and Political Weekly, April, 9.
WHO 2005, `The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to
classification, 2004, Geneva.
20
Table 17
Export of Raw cotton and waste from India
1993-4 1996-97 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
WORLD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
China 6.66 0.36 1.45 17.28 21.43 63.27 48.67
Pakistan 21.39 10.87 6.91 14.75
Turkey 0.46 0.22 0.41 0.35 0.17 0.79 6.83
Indonesia 0.35 2.12 7.08 5.01 4.17 5.03
Thailand 17.89 9.22 1.2 0.95 0.61 0.49 3.82 6.12 3.14 4.87
Hong Kong 24.45 21.34 0.75 8.02 0.4 2.46 2.73 3.72
Vietnam 0.14 0.16 0.34 0.32 0.24 1.27 1.4 3.29 3.52
Bangladesh 5.21 1.26 0.51 4.4 4.72 1.64 24.1 6.25 7.41 3.4
Taiwan 3.08 8.14 0.58 1.21 0.89 6.25 20.2 3.65 2.65
Chile 0.01 2.57
Korea republic 0.73 1.75 0.65 2.15 6.28 4.54 6.46 0.89 0.63 0.73
Malaysia 7.64 11.28 12.26 0.26 1.57 0.26 0.48
Mauritius 9.73 2.36 9.56 1.68 0.41
Japan 14.33 9.44 36.07 9.6 33.23 53.02 2.31 3.25 0.64 0.35
Italy 0.79 4.65 19.41 12.01 7.73 0.02 0.72 1.84 0.03 0.21
Singapore 1.17 0.62 0.42 2.95 0.05 0.27 0.04 0.18
Belgium 0.75 1.2 5.74 2.9 3 10.76 0.09 1.3 0.11 0.18
USA 0.33 1.05 1.23 0.32 6.91 0.5 0.02 1.32 0.02 0.17
Germany 0.44 0.65 3.44 2.54 1.1 0.48 0.16 0.29 0.12 0.16
UK 0.39 2.2 18.66
France 0.41 0.61 5.21
Nepal 0.38 0.16 1.56
Netherlands 0.4 0.47
Australia 0.03 0.2 0.36
Nigeria 0.35
Canada 0.01 0.01 0.33
Source: CMIE, November 1997 and August 2007.