december 2016 volume 18 no.4 leis india · leisa india december 2016 2 a december 2016 volume 18...

1L E I S A I N D I A D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6

Magazine on Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture INDILEISA

Dece

mbe

r 20

16

volu

me

18no

.4

Stakeholders in agroecologyStakeholders in agroecology

L E I S A I N D I A D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6

2

ADecember 2016 Volume 18 no. 4

INDILEIS Dear Readers

LEISA India is published quarterly by AME Foundationin collaboration with ILEIAAddress : AME FoundationNo. 204, 100 Feet Ring Road, 3rd Phase,Banashankari 2nd Block, 3rd Stage,Bangalore - 560 085, IndiaTel: +91-080- 2669 9512, +91-080- 2669 9522Fax: +91-080- 2669 9410E-mail: [email protected]

LEISA IndiaChief Editor : K.V.S. PrasadManaging Editor : T.M. Radha

EDITORIAL TEAMThis issue has been compiled by T.M. Radhaand K.V.S. Prasad

ADMINISTRATIONG.G. Rukmini

SUBSCRIPTIONSContact: G.G. Rukmini

DESIGN AND LAYOUTS Jayaraj, Chennai

PRINTINGNagaraj & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

COVER PHOTOKolar farmers, during their field visit, observe ragi cropwhich can withstand drought conditions.(Photo: AME Foundation)

The AgriCultures NetworkLEISA India is a member of the global AgriculturesNetwork. Seven organisations that provide informationon small-scale, sustainable agriculture worldwide,and that publish:Farming Matters (in English)LEISA revista de agroecología (Latin America)LEISA India (in English, Kannada, Tamil, Hindi,Telugu, Oriya, Marathi and Punjabi)AGRIDAPE (West Africa, in French)Agriculturas Experiências em Agroecologia (Brazil).

The editors have taken every care to ensurethat the contents of this magazine are as accurate aspossible. The authors have ultimate responsibility,however, for the content of individual articles.The editors encourage readers to photocopyand circulate magazine articles.www.leisaindia.org

Board of TrusteesSri. Chiranjiv Singh, IAS - Chairman; Dr. Vithal Rajan - Member; Sri. B.K. Shiva Ram - Treasurer; Dr. M. Mahadevappa - Member; Dr. N.G. Hegde - Member;Dr. T.M. Thiyagarajan - Member; Prof. V. Veerabhadraiah - Member; Dr. A. Rajanna - Member; Dr. Venkatesh Tagat - Member; Dr. Smita Premchander - Member

MISEREOR founded in 1958 is the German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for DevelopmentCooperation. For over 50 years MISEREOR has been committed to fighting poverty in Africa, Asiaand Latin America. MISEREOR’s support is available to any human being in need – regardless oftheir religion, ethnicity or gender. MISEREOR believes in supporting initiatives driven and owned bythe poor and the disadvantaged. It prefers to work in partnership with its local partners. Togetherwith the beneficiaries, the partners involved help shape local development processes and implementthe projects. This is how MISEREOR, together with its partners, responds to constantly changingchallenges. (www.misereor.de; www.misereor.org)

AME Foundation promotes sustainable livelihoods through combining indigenous knowledge and innovative technologies for Low-External-Input natural resourcemanagement. Towards this objective, AME Foundation works with small and marginal farmers in the Deccan Plateau region by generating farming alternatives,enriching the knowledge base, training, linking development agencies and sharing experience.AMEF is working closely with interested groups of farmers in clusters of villages, to enable them to generate and adopt alternative farming practices. Theselocations with enhanced visibility are utilised as learning situations for practitioners and promoters of eco-farming systems, which includes NGOs and NGOnetworks. www.amefound.org

LEISA is about Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. It is about the technical and socialoptions open to farmers who seek to improve productivity and income in an ecologically sound way.LEISA is about the optimal use of local resources and natural processes and, if necessary, the safeand efficient use of external inputs. It is about the empowerment of male and female farmers andthe communities who seek to build their future on the bases of their own knowledge, skills, values,culture and institutions. LEISA is also about participatory methodologies to strengthen the capacityof farmers and other actors, to improve agriculture and adapt it to changing needs and conditions.LEISA seeks to combine indigenous and scientific knowledge and to influence policy formulation tocreate a conducive environment for its further development. LEISA is a concept, an approach and apolitical message.

ILEIA – the centre for learning on sustainable agriculture is a member of AgriCultures Networkwhich shares knowledge and provides information on small-scale family farming and agroecology.(www.theagriculturesnetwork.org). The network , with members from all over the world - Brazil,China, India, the Netherlands, Peru and Senegal, produces six regional magazines and one globalmagazine. In addition, is involved in various processes to promote family farming and agroecology.The ILEIA office in The Netherlands functions as the secretariat of the network.

Diverse stakeholders’ working together has been always a challenge – especially when themandates are inherently different. Self imposed boundaries and hierarchies stifle collective action.However, all these challenges dissolve when the purpose becomes bigger than the position.Agroecological knowledge is context, ability and opportunity specific. Marriage of knowledgesystems – informal and formal, recognition for grass root innovation and creating an atmospherefor it to happen, is the basis for the agroecological movement. Enabling environment andappropriate support is needed which requires different sensitivity, respect and workingarrangements. Diverse stakeholders do play a positive role, when they are determined to. In thisissue, we share some experiences which throw light on the immense potential of working togetherfor a common purpose.We are extremely grateful to the overwhelming response we are receiving to our survey. Everyday, we take pride in receiving your focused responses, words of encouragement and suggestionsfor improvement. It is deeply touching when each one of you take time to cite specific instanceswhen LEISA India content supported you. We thank all those who inspired you for sharing theirexperiences. Again, it reinforces the common vision we all share for a healthy and profitablefarmer, healthy environment for all. Wishing you a Happy New Year!

The Editors


10

15

6 Stakeholders in SRI innovation systemsSuchiradipta Bhattacharjee and Saravanan RajIn the small North East Indian state of Tripura, System of RiceIntensification (SRI) has grown to develop into an innovationsystem where various stakeholders have come together to makethe state self-sufficient in rice production. The lessons learnt fromthe SRI innovation systems in Tripura, if applied to similar cropsand contexts would definitely prove to be a model for developmentand prosperity.

A perspective on the working ofmultistakeholder processesK V S PrasadWhile multi stakeholder processes is desirable for promotion ofagro ecology on a wider scale, in practice, it is not as simple as itis thought to be. AME Foundation’s experience in fostering suchprocesses shows that the success depends on several factors. Infact, adhering to certain basic principles is necessary to keep theprocess going.

Enhancing the power ofnegotiation of smallfarmersDebaranjan Pujahari and AartiDayalNon profits like Technoserve,through partnerships, arecontributing towards empoweringsmall farmers by connecting themto information and marketopportunities. Through theirinitiative, small farmers in Bihar,as members of farmer producergroups, realised the power of negotiation through collectivemarketing.

Joining hands to revive pastoral economyand its ecosystemRamesh Bhatti and Shouryamoy DasA host of organizations have come together in helping thepastoralist community groups conserve the local buffalo breedand the ecosystem. Thepartnerships helped communitiesin gaining access to dairy marketsthat are remunerative. Now, theyare also with the communities inensuring them gain governancerights. The government, the majorstakeholder, is yet to listen to them.

CONTENTSVol. 18 no. 4, December 2016

Including Selections from International Edition

4 Editorial

6 Stakeholders in SRI innovation systemsSuchiradipta Bhattacharjee and Saravanan Raj

10 A perspective on the working of multistakeholderprocessesK V S Prasad

15 Enhancing the power of negotiation of small farmersDebaranjan Pujahari and Aarti Dayal

19 Meeting multiple needs of small farmersM N Kulkarni and S M Hiremath

22 One man missionA farmer educator spreads agroecologyT M Radha

25 Joining hands to revive pastoral economy and itsecosystemRamesh Bhatti and Shouryamoy Das

28 New Books

29 Sources

30 Institutions come together in promotingorganic farmingS Vallal Kannan, P Ananda Priya and P Tamilselvi

33 Partnerships promoting digital platformsAmit Chakravarty

25


4

Stakeholders in agroecologyEdi tor ia l

The livelihoods of a majority of farmers remain highlyvulnerable to drought, disease and marketfluctuations. Conventional agriculture based on high

external inputs has made agriculture unremunerative andunpredictable. Multifunctional, biodiverse farming systemsand localised diversified food systems are essential forensuring food security in an era of climate change.Alternative agricultural approaches build on the principlesof agro-ecology, recycling of resources and self reliance asthe means to achieve this dual goal.

A transition from conventional to ecological systems isslowly taking place. This requires a different set of mindsets,skills and support systems to be operational. Also, as farmersare moving from subsistence agriculture to market/highvalue agriculture, they require different type of support andinformation.

Transition is happening in pockets, largely by farmer tofarmer sharing or with the support of NGOs. For it to happenon a wider scale, support from various stakeholders isessential. The case of SRI in Tripura proves that it is possibleto spread an agroecological practice like SRI to a wholestate, provided there is appropriate policy and supportstructures in place.(Bhattacharjee and Raj, p.6)

In this issue we present experiences which show how farmersare being guided to organize themselves to learn, adopt andleverage collective benefits and the supportive roles playedby diverse external agencies.

Farmer, the major stakeholderKnowledge on agroecology is highly localized and isconstantly evolving from the field. And farmer plays a keyrole in co-creation of knowledge as well as its dissemination.From generations, farmers have been instrumental indisseminating knowledge on agroecology. Many of us knowShri. Narayana Reddy, an organic farmer from Karnataka,who has been passionately spreading knowledge onagroecology. We have many examples of such dedicatedand passionate farmers in India, who have been promotingagroecology on their own. For instance, Mr. Pradeep Kumarfrom Orissa (T M Radha, p.22) has been motivating a largenumber of farmers to practice agroecology, using localplatforms like farmer networks.

Also, farmer to farmer extension has been the major drivingforce in the SRI movement in Tripura that has helped thesocial innovation get traction in the state.(Bhattacharjee andRaj, p.6)

Supportive roles of diverse stakeholdersNGOs have been pioneers in promoting agro ecology. Thecivil society organisations are providing the necessarysupport mainly working on the principles of participatorylearning, community mobilization, sustainable developmentbased on agro-ecology. By making farmers as partners indevelopment, BAIF has enhanced the livelihood security of21000 farmers across 505 villages in Karnataka. It hasproved that critical inputs like seeds, planting materials andknowledge and motivation are enough to take their present,unsustainable agriculture towards the path ofsustainability.(Kulkarni and Hiremath, p.19)

Besides promoting agroecological practices, non profitorganizations like AME fostered initiatives for purposefulcollaborative action by diverse stakeholders. Starting witha few members or stakeholders, the group enlarged to includediverse stakeholders from the civil societies, Researchinstitutions, Universities etc. For instance, the GroundnutWorking Group emerged as a platform for identifying majorproblems in groundnut crop; conduct farmer led trials usingparticipatory technology development (PTD) method; assessresults, adopt suitable alternatives and also, identify newproblems emerging, which need to be addressed, in the nextseasonal cycle. (KVS Prasad, p.10)

Mainstream agriculture institutions like the Krishi VigyanKendras through collaborative initiatives have beenpromoting agro ecological practices, but mainly targetedtowards organic markets. For example, Krishi VigyanKendra in Karur with its multi institutional approach helpedfarmers in Karur district to switch over to organic ways offarming, in rice and sesamum. Also they establishedprocessing units for organic sesame and organic rice and anexcellent network for marketing of organic produce.

The State government departments still largely promoteresource intensive agriculture. However, the state of Tripuraachieved a massive success in promoting SRI, anagroecological practice, through the stakeholder approach.


4


Major support came from various programmes like MacroManagement in Agriculture (MMA), Rashtriya Krishi VikasYojana (RKVY) and recently introduced National FoodSecurity Mission (NFSM). Similarly, in Bihar, JEEViKA, aWorld Bank supported program for poverty alleviation inrural Bihar, is implemented by Bihar Rural LivelihoodsPromotion Society (BRLPS), an independent society of theGovernment of Bihar. JEEViKA facilitated the formationof a producer company with small and marginal farmers toprovide better market support. The members capacity onweighing and grading were strengthened which made theentire marketing business transparent, thereby ensuring thembetter returns.

With increasing spread of digital communication tools,farmers are being supported by providing access to digitalplatforms. Non-profits like Technoserve and ICRISAT havebeen using ICT tools to help farmers. Technoserveempowered small farmers in Bihar by connecting them toinformation and market opportunities. ICRISAT, in the faceof climate change, is helping farmers reduce risk byempowering them with information to take the rightdecisions, and introducing tools and technologies for diversestakeholders to come together and work towards climate-smart agriculture.

Sustaining change processesDiverse stakeholders are supporting farmers, individuallyor in partnerships. While some focus on outcomes, othersfocus on processes. However, to sustain the change process

initiated, a balance between both is what is required. Whilecivil society organizations focus on processes empoweringpeople, their initiatives are comparatively more sustainable.For example, BAIF, by making farmers pay for manyactivities, increased their ownership and brought down theintervention costs to a minimum. The focus has been moreon building capacities, rather than doling out funds.

Transitioning to agroecology calls for different sets ofcapacities, mindsets and support. It means that organisationswith varied competencies need to collaborate and innovativemodels of partnerships need to emerge. While collaborationstypically engage a variety of players, including NGOs,academia, and governments, successful, sustainable changerequires committed participation. Optimally, partnershipsneed to start with a small group of proactive individualsfrom organizations, have a common goal or agenda, haverole clarity and, above all, build and maintain trust.(KVSPrasad, p.10). The group needs to grow organically involvingall interested players and communities, with a focus on thepurpose rather than position of individual stakeholder. Whilethere is no prescribed model for stakeholder partnerships,one should evolve over time, moving from one model toanother or taking on features of multiple models.


www.leisaindia.orgA website for learning and sharing experiences on LEISA practices

Main Features• Space to share your LEISA experience.• A source for LEISA practices followed by

farmers.• An archive of LEISA India magazines –

English edition and regional editions(Kannada, Tamil, Hindi, Telugu, Oriya, Punjabiand Marathi)

• Photos and videos on LEISA practices.• Interesting cases of people following LEISA

practices.

Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Leisaindiamag Follow us on Twitter: @LeisaIndia


6

Stakeholders in SRI innovationsystemsSuchiradipta Bhattacharjee and Saravanan Raj

In the small North East Indian state of Tripura, System ofRice Intensification (SRI) has grown to develop into aninnovation system where various stakeholders have cometogether to make the state self-sufficient in rice production.The lessons learnt from the SRI innovation systems inTripura, if applied to similar crops and contexts woulddefinitely prove to be a model for development andprosperity.

Extension, which was originally thought of as a partof the “knowledge triangle” of research, educationand extension has broken free of the stereotyping to

help farmers to organize themselves, linking farmers tomarkets and some complementary parts such asenvironmental and health information services. Theinnovation systems perspective relies on all the factorsresponsible for development, dissemination and use of

Phot

o: D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re, T

ripur

a

Farmers use markers to follow spacing in SRI paddy field


knowledge while putting emphasis on the relationship ofstakeholders who do so. Agricultural Innovation Systems isthe “new generation” of development model which emergedthrough policy debates in developed countries in the 1970sand 1980s. It is a network of diverse group of actors thatvoluntarily contribute knowledge and other resources tojointly develop or improve a social or economic process orproduct.

The concept of innovation has changed in recent times froma research driven process to an interactive process with muchbroader range of activities among the stakeholders. The termstakeholder is believed to be invented in the early 1960’s asa deliberate play on the word “stockholder” of publicly-heldcorporations or one with a “stake” in the game is one whoplays and puts some economic value at risk. Stakeholdersare individuals and institutions that are concerned with orhave interest in what they have stake in. Being affected bythe project, they have a power to be a threat or benefit to itand may have a moral and in cases, non-negotiable right toinfluence the outcomes or simply may have a democraticright to be involved in the project.

System of Rice Intensification: A socially driveninnovationInnovation in Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) isviewed in a social and economic sense and not purely asdiscovery or invention and System of Rice Intensification(SRI) is a good example. It has been a unique paradigm inAIS in more than one sense. Developed by a Jesuit priest,disseminated by individual and organizations of bothagricultural and non-agricultural background, the researchon SRI was conducted much after the practice was developedand all this has been a fully interactive process among allthe agricultural practitioners, extension professionals,research scientists and diverse other functionaries directlyand indirectly related to SRI. In all, the stakeholders haveplayed an important role in the whole process and it’s mostlytheir interactiveness and participation at various levels anddegrees that have made SRI a success worldwide.

In India, SRI was first introduced in a civil societyorganization, Annapoorna Farms of Auroville in Pondicherryin southern part of the country in 1999. In 2000, it was carriedto Tamil Nadu state of India though articles published inmagazine LEISA (Low External Input SustainableAgriculture) where its spread was mostly led by theGovernment agencies. In Karnataka state of India, SRIdissemination was led by a network of organic farmers’community as well as civil societies and in Andhra Pradesh,one farmer has played a prominent role. In West Bengaland Jharkhand, civil society has played key roles in

popularising SRI. The exception has been Tripura wherethe state extension system has taken SRI to both the doorstepof rural households and to the policy makers’ desk.

Agricultural Innovation Systems in SRI in TripuraIn a small state of 10,492 sq. km. area, only 27% of the totalarea of the state is cultivated of which a mere 4% is irrigated.Rice is the principal crop of the state – both in terms ofproduction and consumption and the livelihood security ofa majority of the farmers depends on it. Since SRI has takenthe form of a mass movement in Tripura state, the presentstudy was taken up to understand the involvement andcontribution of different stakeholders in the state that hasmade SRI a people’s movement. The study also tries tounderstand the support structures existing in the state thathelped the dissemination of SRI in the state and helpedincrease the innovativeness of the stakeholders.

For the study, two out of four districts of the state wereselected- West Tripura and Dhalai Tripura. West Tripuradistrict, with all the agricultural research and extensionorganization headquarters and the state capital Agartala, hasthe highest area under rice and SRI (42% of the total SRIarea). Dhalai Tripura identified as one of the country’s 250most backward districts has the lowest area under rice andSRI (7% of the total SRI area) in the state. Rice being theprincipal crop of the state, is cultivated in three seasons –Aush (April – June), Aman (July – November) and Boro(December – March). While in West Tripura rice ispreferably cultivated in Aman and Boro, in Dhalai TripuraAush and Aman are preferred due to scarcity of waterin Boro.

Six stakeholder organizations were studied from each districtalong with sixty six farmers.

Working with various stakeholdersThe public organizations, farmers and media have been themain stakeholders of SRI innovation systems in the state.Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura (DoA,GoT) has been the lead actor in the system with technicalsupport from Indian Institute of Rice Research (ICAR-IIRR),Telengana, India and financial and policy support fromMinistry of Agriculture, Government of India. Afterintroducing SRI as a tool to gain self sufficiency in rice inthe state, the department has taken much interest in themethod and has diverted a lot of available resources forpromotion of SRI in the state.

The Department of Agriculture, the major promoter of SRIin the State has a very efficient intra-organizational linkage.It also shares a good relationship with the research wing


8

Farmers with regular water source weremore inclined to SRI, thus depending onother farmers, extension personnel and

media for information.

(SARS). State Agricultural Research Station (SARS),Government of Tripura, which initiated SRI in the state byconducting field trials and conducting demonstrations withthe extension system has mostly been involved in researchand providing technical support to the extension personnelsince then. SARS looks after the R&D aspect of SRI andthe extension functionaries receive regular updates fromSARS to make their working more efficient. SARS hasmoved beyond its R&D activities, to become a key advocateof policy changes required to support and sustain SRIinnovation systems.

The department involves PRIs, when needed, forimplementation of any policy or programme, as they areclosest to the rural people. The decentralized democraticadministrative units, the Panchayati Raj Institutions havetaken special interest in SRI. PRIs share good relationshipwith the DoA as it selects the beneficiaries for differentproject implementation. Farmers and SHGs, being part ofthe rural infrastructure, are closely related to the PRIs forany assistance. The SRI beneficiaries in the villages areselected by the village panchayat rather than DoA, selectionof community extension workers (Farmers Friend) is doneby the Panchayats, disbursement of funds for subsidisedmachineries, making provision for irrigation, etc. is donethrough the PRIs. Being village level units they have betterunderstanding of the situation and needs of the farmers andhence are in a better position to take decisions. Thesuggestions of the PRIs are taken up by the Planning Sectionof DoA to implement them at the village level.

The DoA has been maintaining a very good relationship withthe SRI farmers through the extension functionaries and hasbeen taking care of their information and resource needs.The department has a good relationship with the SHGs inthe West, while it is fair in Dhalai. This is so because thenumbers of SHGs in West were much higher than in Dhalai.

Krishi Vigyan Kendra or Farm Science Centre, DhalaiTripura, under the host organization Directorate ofAgriculture, Government of Tripura also played an importantrole in Dhalai district to disseminate the technology. Thoughrecently introduced in SRI innovation systems, its highinterest has already made it an important stakeholder in thestate. The resources allocated to the Farm Science Centreare distributed according to the requirement of the institution

and it has full control over the decisions made and this madeit an important stakeholder in the SRI innovation systemsin Dhalai district.

Media is working on their own for public interest, throughextensive publications and broadcasts. Media (newspapers,TV channels, Akashvani Agartala radio station), as one ofthe stakeholders in SRI innovation systems, undertookextensive coverage of SRI (2-3 articles on SRI each month;publication and broadcast of interviews of successful farmersand extension personnel; success stories of farmers of thestate and programs and articles about technology andeconomic and sustainable aspects of SRI). This createdawareness among agriculture and rural developmentadministrators (the ministers and officials of Governmentof Tripura), policy makers (at all the administrative levelsin the state), political leaders, extension personnel andfarmers.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)Research Centre for NEH Region, Tripura Centre was alsoinitially involved in research and dissemination of SRI inthe state, which has now shifted to other research as theadoption has gained a self-sustaining momentum among thefarmers.

Farmers, their relationship with other stakeholdersFarmers have been the most important stakeholders of SRIin the state. Even though they have been basically receiversof the technology, but their high stake in the wholeinnovation system, and enthusiasm and ready acceptancehas made SRI a big success in the state. Also, farmer tofarmer extension has been the major driving force in theSRI movement in Tripura that has helped the socialinnovation get traction in the state.

The farmers received strong information support from thedepartment, other farmers and the PRIs and medium supportfrom the SHGs. The farmers had poor relationship withICAR-RC for NEH Region, Tripura Centre and SARS. Inthe village, the VLWs are considered as the most crediblesource of information on SRI and the farmers depended onthem for all their information needs. Other than that, theyalso receive assistance from the Agricultural ExtensionOfficers and the Krishak Bandhu. Since the Panchayat selectsbeneficiaries for SRI, the farmers stay in close contact withthe Panchayat for any assistance and also for othernecessities like subsidised machineries for interculturaloperations, pump sets for irrigation, etc. Other than that,every 3-4 days in a week, the farmers sit together in informalgatherings in the villages and exchange information amongthem. Farmers of Dhalai shared a good relation with the


KVK as the KVK personnel visited the farmers’ field onceor twice a week to keep in touch with them. But farmers ofWest Tripura district did not have any direct link with theSARS which was more closely involved with the extensionpersonnel.

The better educated farmers were found to visit the VLWoffice and Panchayat Office at least once a week to collectinformation regarding SRI and other aspects of farming.Almost every day they have been found to meet up withother farmers in the evening and discuss farming relatedqueries. Farmers with a regular water source were moreinclined to SRI, thus depending on other farmers, extensionpersonnel and media for information. Farmers had moreinclination towards staying informed through connectionswith different sources regarding new technologies andgovernment schemes and subsidies aimed towards farmers.Most of the respondents were solely dependent onagriculture and hence were more eager to get informationregarding SRI by maintaining a good relation with extensionpersonnel and fellow SRI farmers.

Policy and support structurePolicies and support structures that have been existing inthe state since the introduction of SRI gave farmers thecourage to take up SRI. Earlier they thought it was a hugerisk to take up SRI. Also with increasing support from thegovernment to SRI, which made rice cultivation moreremunerative, farmers were keen to switch over to SRIpaddy. Major support came from various programmes likePerspective Plan of Government of Tripura, MacroManagement in Agriculture (MMA), Rashtriya Krishi VikasYojana (RKVY) and recently introduced National FoodSecurity Mission (NFSM). During the initial stages of SRIin the state, the fund for research and promotion was receivedfrom MMA till RKVY funds were allocated for the purpose

in the year 2008-2009. The NFSM fund is being utilized forSRI since 2011-12.

ConclusionSRI has spread among the farmers of the state at a very fastrate. Large scale adoption which started in 2006 with 1000farmers, increased to 70,000 in a mere two years (Uphoff,2008). As of 2014-15, 92,341 ha area is under SRI and thetarget is to reach 100,000 ha by 2020. SRI has transformedthe way rice was cultivated in the state and the whole processinvolved efforts from several quarters of extension, research,and decentralized grassroots level governance bodies.

The stakeholders are central to any innovation systems andtheir actions ultimately decide its success or failure. In thecase of SRI in Tripura, the extension mechanism,decentralized grassroots level administrative units, andmedia became the driving force in making SRI a successfulinnovation in the state and a major aide in achieving self-sufficiency in rice grains.

Suchiradipta BhattacharjeeMANAGE Fellow at Centre for Agricultural ExtensionInnovations and Reforms,National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management(MANAGE)Hyderabad, India.E-mail: [email protected]

Saravanan RajDirector (Agricultural Extension),National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management(MANAGE)Hyderabad, India.E-mail: [email protected]


10

A perspective on the working ofmultistakeholder processesK V S Prasad

While multi stakeholder processes is desirable forpromotion of agro ecology on a wider scale, in practice, itis not as simple as it is thought to be. AME Foundation’sexperience in fostering such processes shows that thesuccess depends on several factors. In fact, adhering tocertain basic principles is necessary to keep theprocess going.

Today, agro ecological approaches are increasinglybeing recognised as a most promising solution toaddress rural food and nutritional security, improving

farm productivity and incomes while caring forenvironmental well-being. It is also being recognised thatcollective action is necessary for initiating and sustainingchange processes as the dominant paradigm is still caughtup in unsustainable farming practices which are a threat tofarmer livelihoods as well as environment.

There are lot of efforts by the development practitioners toarticulate and promote several institutional arrangements/models of working together – some highly pragmatic, someideal, some process heavy, invariably caught in the nooseof short duration project timeframes. For them to succeed,intent alone is not sufficient. Firstly, it should be rooted inthe specific local context, needs and opportunities. Secondly,there should be necessary patience to allow them to evolveorganically, rather than squeeze them through templates.Lastly, as one expert put it, quite radically, these platformsneed not exist beyond their period of purpose too.

Presented below are some of the learning outcomes fromtwo specific cases of multistakeholder processes, whichAME facilitated. One deals with Groundnut Working groupand the other with Urban and Peri urban agricultureinitiatives – both involving diverse stakeholders. The resultsand outcomes are based on the organisational memory withadded reflections/perspectives by the author.

Groundnut Working GroupDuring the project phase, in 1996-97, AME began fosteringinitiatives for purposeful collaborative action by diversestakeholders in the development process. This was doneprimarily to widen the basket of options available for a dryland farmer to address problems being faced in a specificcrop based farming system. Beginning with PRAs tounderstand the farmer situations in each specific location,specific crop based Participatory Technology Development(PTD) processes were facilitated to enable farmers identifymajor problems in the crop; conduct farmer led trials byincluding options what they know and those made availableby specialists; assess results, adopt suitable alternatives; also,identify new problems emerging, which need to beaddressed, in the next seasonal cycle. This process waslinked to the multistakeholder process which broughttogether several diverse groups to focus on these groundrealities.

Here begins the first departure from usual models. Themultistakeholder processes for addressing the Groundnutproductivity challenges didn’t start with a ‘blue print’ and a

Phot

o: A

MEF

Groundnut Consultative Workshop


Box 1:Born in response to negative effects of high input agriculture, AMEstarted as an innovative training programme in ecological agriculturein the year 1982 in the Netherlands. After relocating to India,established unique identity by promoting ecological agriculture andfarmer centric participatory learning processes. During 1996-2001,operated as a Indo-Dutch bilateral project, implemented by ETC India.Later, in the year 2002, AME project became AME Foundation. Allalong, AME has focussed on LEISA approaches, participatorylearning processes in the rain fed areas where small holders are themajority.

fixed ‘roadmap’. The immediate problem of the farmer, setthe agenda. Few enthusiastic individuals working on theproblem in diverse backgrounds were contacted. Gradually,they started interacting as a group, informally first and laterformally during annual meets. The options were integratedinto PTD trials conducted by farmers working with AMEand its NGO partners. As these options had to be eco-friendly, affordable and locally suitable, alternatives werelimited and often not easily forthcoming. At the end of theseason, AME along with its NGO partners, facilitated largefarmer meets where farmers assessment of results acrossthree states was consolidated. These findings were fed intothe annual meets. During annual meets, the practitionersand academics put their minds together, shared theirlearnings, and suggested various options for trials. Also,major problems emerging from the farmer meets wereflagged as potential agenda points for further research andaction. The review and planning processes of the annualmeet of the stakeholders focused on these field realities.

Gradually, the group grew organically, in size and indiversity, to evolve as a platform with an identifiablecommonality of purpose. From individuals, it grew into aplatform where institutions they belong to also wanted toget formally involved. The group started gaining recognitionat various levels. National and International research systemslike Australian Council of Agricultural Research, NRCG,ICRISAT, CRIDA, State Agricultural Universities, CentralIPM centres, MANAGE, to name a few, activelyparticipated. Some of them sponsored and co-organised theannual meets. Gradually, financial institutions likeNABARD and input suppliers got involved for extendingsupport to farmers. Most importantly, each annual meetaddressed a specific major problem being faced in groundnut

based farming system and inviting those who can offer asolution to that. Thus, the purpose was overriding powerand status; action oriented initiatives prevailing rather thanacademic discourses.

Another significant aspect of the process, though challengingwas, creating a mutual respect between formal and informalknowledge systems, each with their inherent strengths.Generally, during the annual meets, the previous season’sresults were reviewed vis a vis options tried out. Whilefarmers assessed the options for their utility, solutionsemerging from field were taken up for further formalresearch studies. Thus, it was a two way learning …and inmilder terms – a two way validation process! This not onlyhelped in enhanced mutual respect between diversestakeholders but also enhancing mutual accountabilities too.

New institutional collaborations emerged based onrecognition of farmer’s abilities. For instance, in the year1999, based on groundnut seed route study presented byAME, reputed universities and research institutes who are

part of the platform, offered to supplynucleus seeds to farmers for breederseed production (BSP). Thus theplatform subtly influenced institutionalpolicies.

Sheer presence in these workshopsresulted in higher self-esteem for thefarmers as experimenters and theultimate users of alternatives. While ininitial years, the presentations weredone by NGOs (AME and its partnerNGOs), based on summarised resultsfrom farmer meets, in later years,farmer representatives startedparticipating in the annual meetings ofthe Groundnut Working Groups(GWG). Recognition and visibility of

Groundnut Working Group, 1997InternationalResearch ICRISAT ACIAR

UASBangalore

GroundnutWorking Group

UASDharwad

TNAU

Banks

InputSuppliers

National White GrubProgramme

Karnataka6 NGOs from Kolar,

3 NGOs from Raichur

Tamil Nadu1 NGO - Dharmapuri,

8 NGOs - Tiruchi

Andhra PradeshMYRADA, SAN network,

APRRM, RRS

KVKs

AME

MANAGE

ANGRAU

NRCGCRIDANational

Research

StateResearch

ExtensionTraining

FieldExperimentsby NGOs


12

farmers increased. Infact, one of the annual NationalGroundnut Workshops was inaugurated by a woman farmer.

The Groundnut working group as a platform was operationalfrom 1996-2005. AME as one of the primary resourceagencies promoting LEISA, agro ecological approaches andparticipatory facilitative multi stakeholder processes, showedpossibilities of working together through this GroundnutWorking Group.

Urban Agriculture (UA) PlatformAME Foundation facilitated yet another multistakeholderprocess in a relatively new area of intervention – UrbanAgriculture.

The Project perspective developed by RUAF, TheNetherlands, was based on the vision that policy centricinitiatives could be initiated in urban areas like Bangaloreand Hyderabad. This was inspired by similar initiatives incountries like Sri Lanka, Philippines etc. AME Foundationwas requested by IWMI, the implementing agency, to be aconsultant to anchor the process in Bangalore. While therelevance of urban agriculture was a unique approach aheadof its times, it was to be seen how it could be taken up in agrowing city like Bangalore. Bangalore had the uniquenessof being a traditional green city, but also one the fastestgrowing cities with rapid urban expansion.

The project strategy was to build capacities of diversestakeholders on how to implement a stakeholder concertedaction for creating an enabling policy environment for urbanagriculture in Bangalore. It was soon realised that the processdoes not work that way, at least in Bangalore. The top busypolicy makers were not prepared to be subjected to a longstep by step process learning curriculum. Also, several highlevel bodies were involved in the redrawing green belt areato attract investments as a IT and service sector hub. Whilethey were keen to appreciate the purpose of the programme,

to an extent, they had no time to be involved in the ‘learningprocess’ designed for them.

We had to start afresh to redefine the scope of the project ina fast growing city like Bangalore, with planners and to alarge extent citizens interest in green spaces. Also, we wereconscious that for sustainable cities, the lifeline is alsostrengthening peri-urban agriculture areas, traditionallysupporting the food supplies to the growing city. During theinception meeting to launch the programme, after initialunclarities, the discussions gradually got focussed. Theproject scope was redefined to include urban horticultureinitiatives and peri urban agriculture in a specific area wasvetted in the inception meeting.

Separate ‘enabling teams’ of multiple stakeholders wasforged for urban and peri urban areas separately. TheBangalore enabling team consisted of reputed NGOs (5),Depts. of Government (3), renowned Individuals (2),Knowledge specialists (2) Resident Associations (3). Theperi urban team consisted of all departments, Townadministration, Farmer Groups, NGOs. The enabling teamswere very clear that such initiatives need to be people centredand people driven, even to gain interest of the policy makers.

An exploratory study was conducted by the enabling teamto examine both the urban and peri urban contexts andopportunities. The enabling team took it as the first challengeto conduct a study which could serve also as a spring boardfor some action later. Roles were assigned among thestakeholders to lead the study and to pursue different partsof the study, within accepted timelines. It had to be a patient,disciplined process, for the diverse stakeholders to come toconsensus within the project framework.

One of the key factors for success was frequent meetings(sixty in one and half years) with non-compromisingapproach with regard to clarity of purpose, specific agendasand peer reviewing on progress made, and constantenthusiasm to make a difference through synergies. Someof the members played an advisory role for the enablingteam. Sometimes, they played the role of ‘devil’s advocate’role within the discussions.

Similar multistakeholder processes were followed in theperi-urban area in Magadi where line departments activelytook part. Here too, the momentum was built systematicallywith several rounds of focused discussions with farmingcommunities, officials and various departments and publicmeetings enabled formation of an enabling team for furtherfield action. Repeatedly, how an international program chosethis area for its cooperative and progressive attitudes washighlighted. With the enthusiasm created, with lesserintellectual conflicts, it was easier to involve the line

Phot

o: A

MEF

A meeting of stakeholders in promoting periurban agriculture


departments for joint action. AMEF’s credibility carried ahuge advantage.

AMEF has been continuing the urban initiatives throughdirect training to the citizens on urban home gardens andthe peri-urban farmers further got involved in producingeco-friendly farm produce while conserving localbiodiversity.

Some learningsThe two stakeholder platforms has provided rich experiencefor AME in multistakeholder processes. While some of themajor learnings from the two multistakeholder processesare presented below, it can be safely concluded that thesuccessful functioning of the groups to a large extent can beattributed to their acceptance to certain basic and operationalprinciples of functioning. (see Box 2).

Focussed AgendaThe most crucial component in such processes is the agendasetting, as diverse stakeholders participating in the processeshave their own mandates. Agenda needs to be specific andfarmer need centred. For instance, in the GWG, the agendawas centered around farmer problems and the platformexplored options for ecofriendly pest and diseasemanagement of white grub and leaf miner, improvedagronomic practices and seed varieties, Aflatoxin assessmentstudies and identification of research study topics for formalacademic and research institutions.

Role clarityIt is important that every stakeholder is clear about his roleand his contribution towards the process. In GWG, whileresearch institutions tried to find solutions to farmersproblems, farmers tried various options on their fields fortesting their suitability. In the UA platform, there was clearrole clarity right from conducting the exploratory studies.

Action oriented activitiesDiverse stakeholders continue to work together only whenthey see some role for themselves in taking action. Forexample, in UA platform, the enabling teams got restlesstoo for action. Thus, the enabling teams went beyond theproject expectations of doing studies to initiate some tangibleaction. As a result, two pilot projects were conceived - oneon strengthening peri urban agriculture initiatives andanother, on building the capacities of citizens of residentialareas on urban home gardening. In case of GWG, apossibility of knowledge being put to use as well asmechanisms for feedback on its utility from the field, madethe deliberations pragmatic and action oriented. For example,results of seed trials.

Box 2: Functioning of Multi-stakeholder processes/platformsBasic principles• Willingness to work together - Long term interests rather than

short term conveniences• Mutual Cooperation based on agreed common interests and

actions - Past collaborative behaviors do play a part• Mutual Respect built on known competencies - appreciation

of each other’s competencies• Shared, transparent, functional and facilitative leadership

Working principles• Minimizing ideological posturing and identifying pragmatic

areas for cooperation• Defining long term and short term goals - doable and

achievable• Identifying joint activities and tasks – both short term and

long term• Creating a comfortable ‘pace’ as well as ‘space’ for joint

working• Vertical as well as horizontal accountabilities - accountability

to partners too• Working together mutually acceptable review mechanisms

through consensus• More meetings in the beginning for common understanding

– Compulsory minutes of the action points/ agreements/deadlines/ agreed roles

• Exploring acceptable and transparent financial arrangements

Advisory panel• Need for personalities with lot of humility as well as experience• Persons with great reputation of service and wisdom, ability

to influence rather than power and present position.• They should not be involved in the micromanagement but

help in widening vision.Overall, platforms need to grow organically, strive for creatingpositive energies and synergies, recognize and celebratecollective and individual achievements; while continuouslylearn to deal with challenges.

Appropriate time framesBringing diverse stakeholders with different mandates andinterests to achieve a common goal is a highly timeconsuming process. Quick results cannot be expected in ashort span when transformation sought is of a total changein mindset, practice and policy. Also, different contextual

While farmers assessed the options for theirutility, solutions emerging from field were

taken up for further formal research studies.


14

realities need to be factored in while estimatingduration of intervention. GWG with a long termsupport served its purpose. On the other hand, in thecase of UA platform, the project life cycle got over,by the time momentum was built.

Mutual RespectStakeholders from different backgrounds come withdifferent sets of knowledge systems. In both the cases,with a better understanding about each other, mutualrespect for various knowledge systems representedby farmers, NGOs, academics and researchers,increased. Though patient listening to each other wasinitially difficult, the personal conviction andcommitment of the individuals helped and enrichedthe learning process.

Acknowledgements: The author gratefullyacknowledges the contributions made byMr H. Lanting in conceptualizing Groundnut WorkingGroup, Shri C.K. Subramanian in organizing AnnualGroundnut Workshops. Similarly, the role andcooperation of RUAF team and project leadership ofDr. Robert Simmons, IWMI is deeply acknowledged.

ReferenceKVS Prasad and B Vijayalakshmi, “Practices,Platforms and Policies”, December 2005, LEISAIndia, Vol 7, No.4, p. 26-27

K V S PrasadExecutive DirectorAME Foundation, Bangalore-560085E-mail: [email protected];[email protected]

Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, Oriya, Hindi, Marathi and Punjabi

LEISA India Language Editions

Call for ArticlesFood SovereigntyVol. 19 No. 1, March 2017The March 2017 issue of LEISA India will focus on food sovereignty. Formany people, this remains an abstract term and therefore time has cometo ‘unpack’ it. Food sovereignty is about the right of peoples to healthy andculturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound andsustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculturesystems. Asia continues to rely on traditional food systems for most of itsfood supply. But globalization and the entry and aggressive expansion ofmultinational food corporations, has had major impacts on small scalefarmers, traders and consumers. Food and farming systems are taken outof the hands of farmers – shifting control from farmers to a few multinationalcompanies for seeds and chemicals.

On the other hand, the expansion of global and national super marketsexerts increasing influence over what people eat and how that food isproduced. Cheap packaged and processed food is replacing healthier dailymeals influencing the health of the people.

As a resistance to the changing situations, which are not favourable to thesmall holder farmers livelihoods or to the overall health of the citizens, anumber of peoples movements emerged, both at the national as well as atthe international levels. For example La Via Campesina, an internationalpeasants’ movement, has been fighting for restoring food sovereignty.Similarly, we find local initiatives such as The Anna Swaraj Abhiyan , byNavdanya, which was launched to connect producers to consumers andthe village with the town in direct links through safe, fresh, local and fairfood.

In this issue we would like to capture the full range of experiences – fromagroecological practices on farms to emerging scientific insights, to linkingproducers and consumers and participating in movement and alliancebuilding. We want to capture how local initiatives are leading to changes atnational and international levels. What are people doing to claim and buildtheir own food sovereignty? What strategies have farmers, fisher peopleand consumers developed to create space for themselves in the contextof large multinationals, agribusiness, and strict regulatory measures thatare not in favour of small producers? How are local experiences shapingand being shaped by global initiatives?

Articles for the March 2017 issue of LEISA India should be sent to theEditors before 31st January 2017. Email: [email protected]


Enhancing the power ofnegotiation of small farmersDebaranjan Pujahari and Aarti Dayal

Non profits like Technoserve, through partnerships, arecontributing towards empowering small farmers byconnecting them to information and market opportunities.Through their initiative, small farmers in Bihar, as membersof farmer producer groups, realised the power ofnegotiation through collective marketing.

Purnia district located in the maize belt of Bihar, isknown to have the highest productivity of rabi (wintercrop) maize in the nation at 4 tons/ac. Maize is the

primary cash crop for farmers in the district and most ofthem are small and marginal farmers with an average landholding of 1.39 acres. While the marketable surplus of thesefarmers is nearly 90%, they have limited access to mandis(large markets where farm produce is sold). In the absenceof an alternative solution, they depend on multipleintermediaries for selling their produce.

The intermediary chain is very big and wide ranging fromcollection agents at the village level to brokers at each mandito large traders who eventually sell the produce toinstitutional buyers across the country. Each intermediarycharges a commission, reducing the final price that thefarmer receives. In addition to this, collection agents invillages follow manual grading processes and are knownfor weighing malpractices that lead to significant losses(approximately Rs.60 – Rs.80 on each quintal of produceprocured from farmers). Repealing of the AgriculturalProduce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act has alsoworsened the market infrastructure and trading regulations.Price is now decided by a few big traders and grain qualityis judged by its look and feel, without the use of moisturemeters. This combination of an unorganised trade networkconsisting of multiple market intermediaries with weighingand grading malpractices significantly reduces the final pricethat the farmers receive for their produce.

Collectivising women farmers through FarmerProducer CompaniesKeeping in mind the above mentioned issues faced by smalland marginal farmers in Bihar, JEEViKA, a World Banksupported program for poverty alleviation in rural Bihar,floated a producer company called Aryanyak Agri ProducerCompany Limited (AAPCL). JEEViKA (which meanslivelihood in Sanskrit) is implemented by Bihar RuralLivelihoods Promotion Society (BRLPS), an independentsociety of the Government of Bihar. The organization has

Phot

o: A

utho

rShakila Khatun, a proud and happy member of AAPCL


16

been designated as the State Rural Livelihoods Mission(SRLM) to rollout National Rural Livelihoods Mission inBihar.

AAPCL was established in November, 2009 under theCompanies (Amendment) Act 2002, with its registered officeat district Purnia. Initially, AAPCL had an authorized sharecapital of INR 5 lakhs and could issue 50,000 shares, eachworth Rs. 10 to the small and marginal farmers, categoricallythe target families of JEEViKA. The shareholders belongedprimarily to the Dhamdaha block of the district.

Even though AAPCL came into being in 2009, it was notactive as most producer groups under it were defunct. Amajority of the women producer groups in Bihar largelyrepresent small and marginal farmers with little capacity todirectly market their produce themselves or hold back theproduce to gain lean season premium. The management ofthese producer groups lacks an understanding of the variousmarketing tools and does not have the skill to negotiate withbuyers, leading to higher risks and losses. As a result ofthis, the members have never realised the potential ofcollective aggregation and marketing.

The partnership initiativeTo address this need, JEEViKA, in partnership withTechnoServe India,.launched a technical assistance projectin Bihar in December, 2014. TechnoServe is a different type

of nonprofit, which helpsthe poor people byconnecting them toinformation and marketopportunities. Theobjective of the project,funded by the Bill &Melinda GatesFoundation, was to buildthe capacity of theJEEViKA team on value chain development, organizewomen farmers in two target districts of Bihar into marketoriented Farmer Producer Organizations, provide technicalassistance to producer groups in Bihar and develop a multi-year roadmap to facilitate producer group formation andstrengthen the broader producer group ecosystem in the state.To achieve these objectives, TechnoServe initiated a pilotin Purnia district to demonstrate higher price realization tofarmers through collective aggregation and marketing ofproduce, reducing information asymmetry and reaching outto national buyers through commodity exchange platforms.

Based on an initial assessment of the producer groups inPurnia, their crop profile and existing post-harvest challengesfaced, TechnoServe India recommended the AAPCL to adoptan aggregation and market linkage business model whicheliminates multiple layers of intermediaries and thus ensures

Phot

o: A

utho

r

AAPCL members look forward to expanding their company's business

Digital Moisture Meters help PGmembers sell better quality Maize

Phot

o: A

utho

r


Highlights – Maize Procurement

2014-15 Season 2015-16 Season

1014 MT maize procured 3064 MT of maize procured

AAPCL revenue 1.28 cr; net profit 0.09 cr Total revenue earned by the PC till end July is 75 Lacs

11.46% incremental revenue to farmers Average price offered to PG members who sold maize to AAPCL 13.6%higher than the previous year

70% profit distributed as patronage bonus to members INR 3.49 Crore transferred in account of 818 members from 27 PGs

Additional return of INR 109 per quintal due to patronage bonus 138% increase in the member’s participation in maize selling to AAPCLcompared to last year

The use of an electronic trading platformhelped the producer company to get

connected with nationwide buyers whilepreventing the risk of delay in payment.

better price realization and also allows farmers to benefitfrom off season price increases. The project furtherrecommended the producer company to sell their produceon an electronic trading platform to minimize risk.

Leveraging JEEViKA’s institutional mechanism, AAPCLraised approx. INR 60 lakhs working capital through internalsources – Producer Groups (gap funding) and Cluster LevelFederations (loan @0.6% per month) to do maizeprocurement and marketing. AAPCL members were trainedon the post-harvest practices of maize – standard weighingand grading practices (electronic weighing machines, digitalmoisture meters etc.) to ensure transparency duringcollection and sales. An electronic trading platform (NCDEXE Markets Ltd - NeML) was used to reach out to majorbuyers across India. Farmers’ produce was stored in NeMLcertified warehouses after quality checks and sold toinstitutional buyers in both the spot market (NeML) as wellas futures markets (NCDEX) to maximize returns. With thisprocess, the producer company became the first farmerproducer company in India to be registered under theNCDEX platform for forward trading in maize.

In 2015, 300 women from AAPCL sold their maize online,and in 2016, this number went up to 818 women. The mainbusiness figures of the producer company for the last twomaize seasons are detailed in the table below.

In addition to the benefits mentioned above, the revival ofthe producer company made the members aware of howtransparent the business should be, and they have thus startedasking for better prices from the local collection agents. Theyare also pressurizing the agents to replace their uncalibratedmanual weighing scales and hand based grading practices

with industry standard equipment and practices. The use ofan electronic trading platform helped the producer companyto get connected with nationwide buyers while preventingthe risk of delay in payment and any breach of contract bythe buyers. Also, with the members receiving the paymentfor their produce within 3-5 days of sale, they have beenable to ensure timely repayment of crop/ other loans.

The producer company sold maize under the brand name‘JEEViKA Maize’ and has earned a lot of traction from thebuyers because of the higher quality produce. Theavailability of moisture meter with every producer grouphelped the members to dry and clean the maize before sale,thus making it Grade A maize.

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Use of electronic weighing machines has brought transparency inweighing practices


18

A Beneficiary Speaks“I will always sell my produce to the producer company fromnow on!”

Shakila Khatun is a native resident of Kukrun east village in Purniadistrict. She is 40 years old and stays in a joint family of 11 members.Having 8 acres of land, the family’s major income comes fromagriculture. Maize is grown on 95% of the land, while wheat is grownfor self-consumption. Rice is grown during kharif season, 50% ofwhich is sold in the local market. Even after the cyclonic-wind in themonth of May, her production of maize was 27.7 MT this year. Tilllast year, she used to sell her maize produce to Mr. Mustaq, a village-level-aggregator-cum-trader who picked the maize from her door-step and offered a price based on hand grading practices. Weighingwas done on a handmade wooden weighing machine on which theadhatiyas (intermediaries) always take 7-8 Kg per quintal higherproduce showing the reason as moisture loss. Like many others,Shakila doesn’t have a say to negotiate with Mr. Mustaq, as she hasalso taken a loan during the period of crop sowing.

During the first week of March 2015, Shakila participated in theAnnapurna producer group meeting, of which she is a member, andcame to know that the producer groups will procure maize and sellto AAPCL this season. She participated in all the meetings organisedby JEEViKA and TechnoServe team, understood the procedure, and

spread the information to allthe members of the groups.

She took extra care on thepost-harvest practices ofmaize suggested by theproject team, and as a result100% of her maize was soldas Grade-A produce to theproducer group. She herselfused the moisture meter tomeasure the moisturecontent of her grain. Accurate weight of the produce was measuredthrough the electronic weighing scale and payment was crediteddirectly to her bank account within 3 days of procurement. Suchlevel of transparency convinced her to sell 100% of her produce tothe producer group. She earned an average price of INR 1003 perquintal, 6% higher than what she would have got had she sold herproduce to Mr. Mustaq. Being a shareholder of the producercompany, she will also receive patronage bonus if the companymakes enough profit at the end of the financial year, taking herincreased price realization to 11.3%.

“This is the first time in my life thatI’ve seen someone procure maizefrom a farmer’s doorstep with suchtransparent procedure. Not only me,but all didis (producer groupmembers) will sell maize to theproducer company from now on.”

- Shakila Khatn, Member,Annapurna Producer Group, April24, 2015

Expanding to MuzaffarpurIn addition to maize, in May 2016, JEEViKA, withTechnoServe’s support, initiated a pilot in Litchi andvegetables market linkage to cut out the middlemen andprovide direct market access to the farmers. To do this, thepilot aimed to strengthen Samarpan Jeevika Mahila KisanProducer Company Limited (SJMKPCL), Muzaffarpur.

SJMKPCL has procured 6120 kgs of litchi as a pilotintervention in the 2016 season. Four thousand kilogramswere sold on NeML to distant markets of Mumbai,Ahmedabad and Bangalore. The producer company earnedINR 5.0 lakhs as net revenue from the litchi business with8% net profit. Though the number of farmers whoparticipated in the pilot was less, the spot purchase farmersearned an incremental price of 16% while contracted farmersrealized better price and assured payment.

As for vegetable market linkage, 5 MT (~INR 1.5 lakhs) ofvegetables were supplied by the farmers in Sakra block toBig Bazaar, an organised retail chain in one month (August,2016).

Way ForwardMoving forward, AAPCL will focus not only on maize butalso other commodities like potato and banana. SJMKPCL,on the other hand, will try to expand its business in the litchi

and vegetables value chain, and will also get into pulses.Both companies plan to undertake input (fertiliser) supplybusiness as there is a great demand from the members forthe same. AAPCL aims to expand its shareholder base to10,000 farmers in the next 3 years and plans to reach aturnover of 100 crore.

All the producer company members have acknowledged thepower of negotiation through collective marketing. Theyfeel proud to be a part of a producer company and havealready started making plans for its expansion.

Debaranjan PujahariAssociate Practice Leader

Aarti DayalManager, Communications and New ProgramDevelopment

TechnoServe IndiaB1 - 201, Centre Point, Opposite Bawla Masjid 243A N M Joshi Marg,Lower Parel (E)Mumbai - 400 013


Meeting multipleneeds ofsmall farmersM N Kulkarni and S M Hiremath

NGOs have been pioneers in promoting agro ecology.By making farmers as partners in development, BAIF hasenhanced the livelihood security of 21000 farmers across505 villages in Karnataka. It has proved that critical inputslike seeds, planting materials and knowledge andmotivation are enough to take their present, unsustainableagriculture towards the path of sustainability.

BAIF’s saga of integrating the small and marginalfarms with fruit trees, forestry trees (fodder trees,biomass species, timber and fuel wood species),

fodder on bunds with soil and water management (tree basedfarming system, TBFS) was started back in 1985. TBFSwas implemented on a pilot basis in selected villages ofHunsur taluk, Mysore district during 1985 to 1990.

What is tree based farming system?TBFS is also popularly known as WADI, meaning “orchard”in Gujarati. TBFS includes a menu of low cost, environmentfriendly activities like- planting of horticulture trees, forestrytrees, fodder trees, fodder grasses, adopting enrichedcomposting methods, natural methods for disease and pestmanagement, dairy animals, small ruminants, soil and waterconservation measures etc. In this practice, farmers areencouraged to plant 35 to 40 fruit species (mango, tamarind,

Its family farming with TBFS

Phot

o: A

utho

r

cashew, guava, etc) and 8-10 forestry species per acre. Thefruit plants can be planted in the cropping field or they canalso be aligned along the internal bunds and boundary bunds.Fruit trees start bearing fruits from the 5th year planting andwould fetch income for the farmers.

Forestry plants can be planted along the field bunds andfield boundaries. The forestry plants need to include fuelwood species like Acacia auriculiformis, Cassia, Glyricidia,timber species like-teak, silver oak, melia dubia, dalbergiaetc. Sesbania, erythrina, subabul, moringa yield good qualityfodder, thus sustaining dairy activities. The forestry plantsstart producing biomass and fuel wood after 4th year ofplanting. Biomass produced from forestry plants can be usedas substrate for producing vermicompost and applied to thefield. This helps to reduce the application of chemicalfertilisers and thus reducing the emission of nitrous oxideto the atmosphere. There will be enough fuel woodproduction by the 5th year of plantation. This will meet thefuel wood needs of the family and reduces pressure onforests. Thus, in a period of 5-6 years, dry lands under TBFSwill become diversified farms with increased food security,fodder availability and resilience from climate changeeffects.

It is found that soils under TBFS or organic farming wouldharvest 733 – 3000 KG or more carbon per hectare per yearfrom the atmosphere. Increasing the sequestration of carbon


20

Increased availability of plant biomasshas motivated farmers to go in for rearingsmall ruminants like sheep or goat and in

some cases dairy animals.

Box 1: Irfan sees his future in TBFSIrfan Kamadolli, 31, resides in Hirebendigeri village in Haveri districtwith his family. He owns three acres of rainfed land. Earlier, Irfanwas engaged in construction work in Goa. Eight years ago hereturned to his village, but he was in a confused state about hislivelihood in the absence of assured water for agriculture. He wasgrowing sorghum, little millet and groundnut worth Rs. 30,000/-per annum in three acres. He owns a pair of bullocks and twocows. He used to depend on crop residues for fodder and madeuse of the compost for his land. He engaged in agriculture for sixmonths and engaged in labour work for the other six months.

Initially, he was reluctant to adopt TBF stating that ‘we cannot lookafter the plants year around, as we come to the land for only sixmonths during the season and engage in labour work for the restof the time’. However, finally, in 2010 he had decided to join theproject. The project assisted him with critical inputs such as mangografts, forestry seedlings and fodder seeds. Irfan took utmost careand followed the technical inputs provided by the staff to nourish120 mango plants. He brought the water in pots from thevillage and hired water tanks to provide protective irrigation duringsummer.

His hard work started yielding. During 2014, he sold gradedmangoes in the market. On an average, he earns Rs, 30000 fromsale of fruits per year. He also grows maize and vegetables asintercrops.

Now, the TBF has revived his hopes for the future. He goes to thefield everyday and says ‘There is some work to be attended everyday and it gives me pleasure to see greenery in my land’.

Phot

o: A

utho

rView of TBFS with trees, crops and fodder

in soils is a vital aspect of climate change mitigation. Byincreasing carbon absorption, TBFS has a lower climateimpact than modern agriculture.

Integrating a new ideaIntegrating trees in the farming system is an insuranceagainst crop losses and also helps in preserving theenvironment. Thus, tree based farming system (TBFS) isgood in the larger interest of the farming community andenvironment. However, farmers do not perceive it that way,as they have to wait before the trees start yielding. Hence,the role of implementing agency becomes very crucial inmotivating farmers to practice TBFS.

Village meetings, personal contacts and focus groupdiscussions were organized to explain the concept witheconomic and environmental benefits. Exposure visits tosuccessful TBFS locations facilitated farmer to farmersharing and learning. This was followed by demonstrationsof pit excavation, pit filling and planting methods and alsoactivities like basin preparation, shading, mulching and aftercare activities. Good quality planting materials were suppliedto ensure timely plantation. The planted area is protectedby live fence to avoid grazing by stray cattle. Village leveltrainings and frequent follow up visits ensured disease andpest management. Also, facilitated building marketinglinkages and linkages with the State departments to availbenefits.

ImpactsThere is significant improvement in soil productivity in TBFplots. Tree coverage in the project villages has improved

the micro-climate. One can experience the cool climate inthe TBFS land compared to non TBFS land.

Due to TBFS, soil and water conservation, organic farming,and livestock, the family income has improved significantly.On an average, farmers earn Rs.10000 to 12000 per acrefrom fifth year of plantation. This is in addition to theintercrops that were also grown in the same land.

Fodder trees, shrubs and grasses planted on bunds and barrenlands have improved fodder availability. This has motivatedfarmers to go for rearing of small ruminants like sheep orgoat and one or two dairy animals.

The families who have adopted TBFS are able to getfirewood from their farms thereby reducing the hardship


Box 2: Bounties from mixed farmingSri. Gangaiah Vibhutimath, is a marginal farmer of Madapur village,Savanur taluk in Haveri district. He owns one and half acre dryland. Before 2008, he was cultivating only annual crops likesorghum, maize, chilly and pulses under rain fed system. During2008, he started to diversify agriculture by adopting mixed farmingsystem by planting sapota, mango, lemon, guava and curry leaf.He got the support for planting materials through Samrudhi projectsupported by Deshpande Foundation.

He took care of the trees by providing protective irrigation duringthe summer. Now, his land consists of 41 sapota, 70 curry leaf,eight mango and six lemon trees. He is also growing flowers (asterand kanakambara), fodder and annual crops as intercrops in thesame land. The horticulture trees have started yielding since 2013onwards. During 2015, he earned Rs. 10000 from sale of sapotaand guava fruits. His average income from sale of flowers isRs. 20000 per month. He sells flowers at Savanur market,10 km from Madapur. All put together, he earns Rs. 1.8 lakhannually. This is apart from the harvests from annual crops whichhe uses for home consumption. “Mixed farming system has helpedme earn good returns to meet the marriage expenses of mydaughters”, adds Gangaiah with a smiling face.

for women who used to walk to nearby forests and villagecommon lands to collect firewood. Also there is less pressureon forests too.

Enhancing the role of farmer as stakeholderBAIF has been implementing the TBFS with the financialsupport of several donors like DANIDA, CAPART,Government of India, Government of Karnataka, NABARD,Deshpande Foundation etc. In all these programmes, thefunding agency, the implementing agency and the farmershave worked in tandem. Over the years, it can be clearlyseen that these programmes had greater role for the farmersin planning and implementation.

During the pilot phase, farmers had to be supported andcompensated for implementing every new idea. There wereseveral cash incentives to farmers for adopting TBF like pitexcavation, planting, aftercare, farm bunding, watch andward, fencing and watering during summer. Apart from this,there were other expenses like exposure, training and fielddemonstrations. The cost per acre shot up to Rs. 30000during the pilot project period.

For increasing the ownership of farmers in the programme,BAIF had to change its strategies from time to time. Cashincentives to farmers were minimized from 1995 onwards.The concept of cost sharing, both in the form of kind andcash was introduced for the projects implemented since

1995. Gradually, farmers started contributing for specificactivities like pit excavation, plantation, aftercare etc. Insome of the programmes, they made cash contribution tothe extent of Rs.500 per acre and in some cases contributedin the form of labour. Today, the cost for adopting TBFShas come down to Rs, 7000 per acre. This includes manpower and administration costs also.

We have reached a stage, wherein, TBFS can be scaled upwith critical inputs like good quality planting materials atsubsidized costs, exposure and motivation. The model hasbeen demonstrated well and accepted by the farmers acrossKarnataka. NABARD is replicating this model across thecountry under tribal development funds. Department ofTribal Affairs, Government of India, has recognized BAIFas a resource organisation for implementation of WADI intribal belts of India.

M N Kulkarni and S M HiremathBAIFKusumanagar,Dharwad, Karnataka.


22

One man missionA farmer educator spreads agroecologyT M Radha

Knowledge on agroecology is constantly evolving on thefield - and, farmer plays a key role in co-creation ofknowledge as well as its dissemination. Here is apassionate teacher cum farmer who is motivating farmersto practice agroecology, using local platforms like farmernetworks.

Pradeep Kumar is the Head master of a middle schoolin Guhalpur, a small village in Digapahandi block inGanjam district in Orissa, since 16 years. Pradeep

belongs to a farming family in Bhimapur and started hiscareer as a development professional in an NGO called GramVikas. Pradeep with a deep commitment towardsdevelopment, has been instrumental in bringing about achange in mindsets and fostering action, among the farmersand the students alike.

Spreading SRI, an agroecological practicePradeep Kumar having worked with rice farmers during hisassociation with GramVikas, was aware of the problems inrice cultivation, which was primarily salinity in irrigatedwater. In 2000, he happened to read the article by Dr. NormanUphoff in the December issue of 2000, in LEISA India.Excited about the idea, he shared it among his farmer friendsin Guhalpur to try out SRI in their farms. Two farmersexperimented with the idea and got good results.

In 2000-01, to facilitate fair distribution of water forirrigation for the rice farmers from Ghodohada dam, Pradeepmotivated farmers to get organised into water groups calledPani Panchayat. Around 57 villages in the Digapahandiblock were part of this group, with two representatives fromeach village. This group met once every month and discussedissues related to agriculture and also those related to overall

village development. Many of the village level disputes weresettled during the group meeting. Also being a farmer,Pradeep was a part of the group and played an influentialrole in the group. He being an educated person and theteacher, the local community has great respect for him.

In one of the meetings, Pradeep shared about SRI and howit helps in reducing resource use while enhancing yields.More importantly, as the main purpose of the water usersgroup was to use water more efficiently, he stressed on theless water requirement for SRI, as a means to motivatefarmers to adopt SRI. Around 200 farmers took up SRIinitially. By 2003, around 1000 farmers in the block startedadopting SRI on their farms.

Till 2005, SRI promotion was not on the agenda of the Statedepartment. There was no government support for SRIpromotion and only few NGOs in the district like LIPICAand Gram Vikas were motivating farmers to adopt. Pradeep

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Pradeep and Pani panchayat members work togetherin solving water based issues


Students are first generation literates, thepractical training on kitchen gardens is

not only joyful but also makes them awareand believe in environmental

friendly activities.

also organized a couple of meetings in his school by invitingresources persons from the Rice Research Institute inCuttack. Around 50 farmers participated. However, thiscould not be continued for long.

From 2005 onwards, his focus was on upscaling theinitiative. Follow up was made during the monthly and bi-monthly meetings of the Pani panchayat at the block level.Success achieved, problems faced were all discussed at themeetings. The knowledge and skills that need to be upgradedwere also identified. But unfortunately, the communities hadno means of fulfilling this desire. The staff from agriculturedepartment visited only when there was pressure from themembers, but hardly advised on better practices in farming.

Presently, SRI is being promoted by the Department ofagriculture and is a State level initiative. Pradeep wasinstrumental in motivating farmers to adopt SRI inDigapahandi block, much before the State started promotingit. The government run training programmes on SRI are notadequate, feels Pradeep. The programme took off slowly asfarmers were slow to get convinced. After a number ofexposure trips, farmers started adopting SRI. Pradeepinteracted with SRI farmers in about 20 villages. Farmersexpressed improvement in yields. Some got 20-25 quintalsper acre while they were getting only 15-16 q/ac., earlier.Farmers found this method innovative and resource savingbut were not sure whether they could follow on a large scale.

Moulding young minds towards agroecologyPradeep has been instrumental in starting a kitchen gardenin the school. The kitchen garden was started as a part ofcreating an activity based learning environment. Since mostof the students come from poor farming families, childrenhave a natural interest towards gardening. The kitchen gardenis about 200 sq.mts. A number of vegetables like brinjal,drumstick, chillies, green leaves, papaya etc., are grown inthe garden.

Pradeep with his awareness on ecofriendly cultivation hasbeen promoting organic ways of cultivating these vegetables.A pit is made in the garden where compost is prepared usingwaste materials from the garden. Cowdung, neem leaves,deodar leaves etc are used for composting. Also hasexperimented with vermicomposting after reading about itin the magazine, but could not achieve great success.

In the beginning, the plants were affected by white ants andoccasionally some diseases. “Dr. Narayana Reddy’s column(a special column in LEISA India by an organic farmer)helped us a lot in addressing these problems” says Pradeep.He further added that green manuring was resorted to andconstant care and observation helped tide over many

problems. He had also tried applying night soil to marigoldplants based on Narayana Reddy’s experience.

Children have a special sharing class for an hour on everySaturday. The students are organized into ecoclubs in whichthey are exposed to environmental issues. Children sharewhat they have been doing and also the problems inmaintaining the kitchen gardens. The teachers advise themon necessary followup action. No special training is impartedto children on kitchen gardening.

Phot

o: A

utho

r

School students maintain kitchen gardens usingecofriendly methods


24

The harvest from the kitchen garden is used in thepreparation of mid day meals for the students. The studentsfeel that the taste of vegetables they grow is much betterthan what they taste when they buy vegetables from outside.Children in turn go back home and discuss these with theirparents.

Pradeep feels that “doing is believing” and as these studentsare first generation literates, the practical training on kitchengardens and composting is not only joyful but facilitatesindependent thinking among children and also makes themaware and believe in environmental friendly activities. Thejoyful learning processes has ensured that students continuetheir education. “There are no dropouts from the school,anymore”, says Pradeep happily.

Sphere of influencePradeep has been active in interacting with farmingcommunities through the Pani Panchayat, with schoolchildren and their parents (who are also farmers), and alsohas built strong linkages with the village level workers andthe block level officers. Presently, Pradeep is the contactperson for all the development activities at the block level.He discusses various issues especially creating awarenesson the environmental aspects.

Pradeep has been able to influence a number of people inthe society with his views. Starting from students in hisschool, it extends to the teachers who are presently workingand those who have retired as well. For example, Mr. KaliMishra, who hails from Sama Singi in Berhampur GramPanchayat, is a teacher in this school who spreads the ideasback home. His close friends in two NGOs, for example,LIPICA in Berhampur and Jan Jagaran in Digapahandi blockhave spread his ideas. Infact, he is the resource person forthe Kansamari farm of Jan Jagaran maintained by differently-abled persons. His strongest influence can be seen on thePani Panchayat members whose membership includes 57villages in the block. Besides, he actively engages with theeco-club students at the block level too.

Pradeep sphere of influence has been much wider, owing tothe fact that his position as a school teacher and an activemember of Pani Panchayat gives him opportunity to interactwidely. More importantly, his personal qualities like hispassion and dedication have played a great role. For instance,Pradeep is a key person in the village who is respected forhis education and abilities. His passion towards developmentwork, his prior experience in development organizations,his networking abilities and contact with the outside worldhas made him evolve into a person gaining lot of respectfrom the society. On the other hand, his position of being a

head master has given him an opportunity to mould theyounger generation too. All these qualities have played animportant role in spreading information on agroecology.

The case of Pradeep shows that even an individual can makea lot of difference to the society, if driven by passion. Thepower of information sharing comes out explicitly in thiscase. If information reaches the right person with passion,there is no limit to the impact that it can create. Even oneperson, one farmer or one educator can bring about a changein the society he lives.

T M RadhaAME FoundationBangalore, Indiawww.amefound.orgE-mail: [email protected]


Joining hands to revive pastoraleconomy and its ecosystemRamesh Bhatti and Shouryamoy Das

A host of organizations have come together in helping thepastoralist community groups conserve the local buffalobreed and the ecosystem. The partnerships helpedcommunities in gaining access to dairy markets that areremunerative. Now, they are also with the communities inensuring them gain governance rights. The government,the major stakeholder, is yet to listen to them.

Banni has been home to Maldharis (as the communityof pastoralists is known in Kutch) for almost morethan 5 centuries now. Banni, once Asia’s second

largest grassland, was considered to be the finest of allgrasslands in India. It expands across 2500 sq km and ishome to a variety of flora and fauna. More than 7000 familieslive in Banni today, and most of them are maldharis. Maldharis used to have grazing rights on Banni during therule of the king; the rights were conferred in lieu of paymentof a grazing tax. Decisions on the utilization and managementof the grassland used to be taken by leaders of the maldharicommunities, and the community as a whole ensured thatthe norms were followed by all. These maldharis still holddocuments dated back to 1856 that codified their rights onBanni during princely rule.

Banni was classified as a protected forest in the year 1955.No survey or settlement processes were carried out at thattime. Since then, governance rights on the grassland havebeen ambiguous, while the Revenue department hadtransferred the administrative control to Forest departmentin 1998, Forest department refused to administer the landtill survey of the villages located within Banni wascompleted. Since, neither the Forest department nor theRevenue department stepped in to take administrativecontrol, the Maldharis, in-spite of having no formal control,have continued to manage and govern the grassland in usingtheir traditional systems. Banni maldharis have sincebecome famous for their vigorous animals breeds, especially

the Banni Buffalo, a syncretic relationship with theecosystem, and an elegant culture of maldhariyat.

Call for actionThings however were soon to change. And in 2008, theBanni Pashu Mela, an annual animal fair, which celebratesthe breeds, culture, and human ecology of Banni became aplatform to usher this change. The elders among themaldharis realized they needed to make concentrated effortsto augment the livelihoods of their community, work forrecognition of the Banni buffalo breed, address the issue ofthe community’s rights on the grassland, and develop plansto conserve the Banni grasslands (which was fast degradingdue to the spread of an alien invasive species called ProsopisJuliflora). About 1200 maldharis came together to formBanni Breeders Association which was registered underGujarat trust and society act as Banni Pashu UchherakMaldhari Sangathan (BPUMS) in 2009 and started workingto pursue the community objectives. BPUMS formalizedits governance structure, and was to be managed by a 21member Executive body elected for a term of three years.The executive body comprised of one representative fromeach of the 19 panchayats and two SC members. BPUMSjoined hands with Sahjeevan, a local NGO, to register BanniBuffalo and with NDDB to revive the milk economy. Theyalso started addressing the issue of conserving Banni through

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Traditionally, Bannis were maintained by Maldharis


26

With bulk milk cooling centers in villages ofBanni, the production has increased to

100,000 liters of milk daily, with the livestockestimated economy being at

INR 110 crore per year.

traditional governance models and restoring their formalrights on the land by starting negotiations with thegovernment.

Banni Buffalo – Gaining recognitionBPUMS, since then, has met with unqualified success inaddressing the issue of livelihoods. Banni Buffalo has beenbred and developed by pastoralists in Banni over generations.This breed has unique characteristics of such as droughtresistance, disease resistance, high yields even underdistressed conditions, calm demeanor, and ability to grazein the night by itself which makes it perfectly suited for anarid or semi-arid climate. BPUMS, with support fromShajeevan, Sardar Krishinagar Agricultural University(SDAU) and State department on Animal Husbandry gotthe breed registered in 2010. Registration has led torecognition for both the breed and the breeders. NationalBiodiversity Authority and Life Network awarded BreedSavior award to Haji Musa, a maldhari, and BPUMS jointly.Salemamad Halepotra, president of BPUMS, was appointed(and still continues to be) member of the managementcommittee of NBAGR. Demand for Banni buffaloesincreased and the average price of Banni buffaloes has morethan doubled since its registration.

Banni Buffalo was the first buffalo breed to be recognizedin India after independence and since then 29 new breeds oflivestock has been registered by NBAGR.

Milk economy gets a boostThe pastoralists of Banni had been producing milk that faroutstripped the local demand, and hence the prices remaineddepressed till 2008. Setting up a milk dairy to market milkoutside of Kutch was the need of the hour, and BPUMSstarted discussions with NDDB. NDDB agreed and in closecollaboration with BPUMS set up bulk milk cooling centersin villages of Banni. As a result, the price of milk has tripledin the last decade. This has also led to an increasedproduction of milk. Now Banni produces more than 100,000liters of milk daily, up from 60,000 liters in 2008. Today thesize of the livestock economy stands at an estimated INR110 crores per year.

Reviving traditional governance systemsForested landscapes in India have been contested for longand this contest has intensified in the recent decades.Forested lands that have been indispensable to survival ofindigenous people and local communities have been takenover unilaterally by the state on the pretext of conservation.This has seen enclosure of commons and rights of the localcommunities on these resources have been often been

curtailed or negated. Indigenous peoples and localcommunities, often with the support of civil societyorganisations, withstood appropriation of communityresources and have tried to regain rights and ownership overcommons and community resources. These efforts led toenactment of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional ForestDwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA).FRA recognized the rights of local communities on theirancestral lands, community forest resources, and customaryterritories. Unfortunately, the implementation of the FRAhas met with roadblocks placed by groups and individualswith vested interests. As a result FRA has had limited successin achieving its objectives of securing livelihoods, enhancingforest conservation, strengthening local self-governance, andopening political space since its enforcement.

The situation in Gujarat (and in Kutch) has been no different.BPUMS’s consultation with the government forformalization of their rights has proved to be a much morearduous climb; and one that is still to reach its destination.BPUMS started off by first documenting its communityrights and ways in a BCP developed under article 8j ofNagoya Protocol. In the year 2009, the Forest departmentcame up with a working plan to fence large areas of Banni.This working plan, developed without consulting thecommunity, proposed not only to cut pastoralists’ access toa number of wetlands within Banni, but also turned a blindeye to the pastoralist’s need to move across ecosystems in asingle calendar year. Banni Breeders’ association decidedto ask for their community rights instead, since it was evidentthat the implementation of the working plan would havebeen a threat to the ecosystem that sustained them. This inturn would have impacted their own livelihood, breeds, andculture.

The breeders’ association also realized that FRA could beinstrumental in formalizing their rights on grassland ofBanni, and it was an opportunity to start reviving traditionalgovernance systems while a struggle for their rights ensued.BPUMS anchored a signature campaign across all the 54villages across Banni. This campaign, now famous as “BanniKo Banni Rahene Do” meant ‘let Banni remain as commons’and worked to reestablish the way the grassland had beenutilized traditionally, conserved, and managed by


pastoralists. BPUMS organized numerous meetings invillages and Panchayats and decided to collectively showtheir disapproval, spread awareness about their rights, andstarted urging the state government to implement the FRAin the Banni at the earliest. Elders of the Maldharicommunities and BPUMS representatives engaged in aseries of consultations with the Minister of Tribal Affairsand Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Ministry ofTribal Affairs informed the representatives that whileimplementation of FRA has been started in the state, it wasyet to be done in Kutch, since the nodal agency forimplementation of FRA in non-scheduled areas (such asKutch with it low tribal population) was yet to be finalized.In 2012, implementation of Working Plan was initiated bythe forest department. Maldharis responded by organizinga rally in Bhuj and submitted a memorandum to the Collectorof Kutch, informing him and the State Level MonitoringCommittee that as long as their rights remain unrecognizedunder FRA, they would continue to resist peacefully. On5th June 2012, BPUMS invited the media to demonstratetheir way of managing grassland and solicited media’ssupport for the struggle.

Negotiating with the StateAt BPUMS’s behest, the gram sabhas in Banni startedforming Forest rights committees (FRC) in each village andstarted claiming their rights on Banni. These efforts led toa notification by Government of Gujarat and letters weresent to Collectors of all non-scheduled districts of the statedirecting them to implement FRA. The districtadministration then formally summoned Gram Sabhas toform Forest Rights Committees (FRCs) in each village.Resource mapping plan was developed using participatoryexercises that studied the traditional grazing practices, bio-physical conditions, dependency of livestock, and existing

faunal and floral biodiversity. These community claims wereapproved by SDLCs while the DLC agreed to them inprinciple. Out of the 54 FRCs that were formed, 48 of themdecided to file for common rights to Banni. This was aremarkable achievement for BPUMS, since this reflected apastoralist’s need for access to regions across Banni. Thiswas also the first time that such a large community had cometogether to submit common claims over a whole forest.

BPUMS, since then, has also started working with renownedresearch institutions such as ATREE, NCBS, and AmbedkarUniversity to set up RAMBLE (Research and Monitoringin Banni Landscape) an institution committed to study thegrassland and provide research-backed inputs on itsconservation and management.

The efforts of Banni Maldharis had not only opened thegates for their claims to be formalized, but also of the othercommunities that lived off commons in non-scheduled areasdistricts of Gujarat and needed the support of FRA toestablish their rights. Efforts to formalize community rightson Banni are still ongoing, and BPUMS is negotiating withthe District Collector of Bhuj and the Chief Minister ofGujarat now. This journey has been marked by trials andtribulations, and the collective strength of the maldharis dealtwith all of them till now. Banni Maldharis are the onlypastoralist group in India that has been able to mount a stakefor their common rights. Notably, Banni is also the largestgrassland area on which land rights are being negotiatedbetween the community and the government. Commons inIndia have long witnessed degradation due to an absence ofgovernance or misgovernance. Maldharis, through BPUMS,have proposed a system to resolve this, a system that can bereplicated across the country. Recognition of their rights willbe a landmark achievement not just for pastoralists of India,but also for the democracy of India. We can only hope thatrecognition of rights on Banni will inspire other pastoralcommunities in India to follow suit and start registering theirclaims in their communal lands.

Ramesh BhattiProgramme Driector, SahjeevanBhuj, Kutch – 370001www.sahjeevan.orgE-mail: [email protected]

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Banni Buffalo is bred and developed by pastoralists in Banni overgenerations


28

NEW BOOKSForgotten Agricultural HeritageReconnecting food systems and sustainable development

Parviz Koohafkan, Miguel A. Altieri, 2017, Routledge, 272 p., £32.99,ISBN: 9781138204157,

Contemporary agriculture is often criticized for its industrial scale, adverse effects onnutrition, rural employment and the environment, and its disconnectedness from natureand culture. Yet there are many examples of traditional smaller scale systems that havesurvived the test of time and provide more sustainable solutions while still maintainingfood security in an era of climate change. This book provides a unique compilation ofthis forgotten agricultural heritage and is based on objective scientific evaluation andevidence of the value of these systems for present and future generations.

The authors refer to many of these systems as Globally Important Agricultural HeritageSystems (GIAHS) and show how they are related to the concepts of heritage and theWorld Heritage Convention. They demonstrate how GIAHS based on family farms,traditional indigenous knowledge and agroecological principles can contribute to foodand nutrition security and the maintenance of agro-biodiversity and environmentalresilience, as well as sustain local cultures, economies and societies.

Two substantial chapters are devoted to descriptions and assessments of some 50 examplesof designated and potential GIAHS from around the world. The book concludes byproviding policy and technical solutions for sustainable agriculture and rural developmentthrough the enhancement of these systems.

Climate Change and Agricultural DevelopmentImproving Resilience through Climate Smart Agriculture, Agroecology and Conservation

Udaya Sekhar Nagothu (Ed.), 2016, Routledge, 322 p., £85.00, ISBN: 9781138922273

Two of the greatest current challenges are climate change (and variability) and foodsecurity. Feeding nine billion people by 2050 will require major efforts aimed at climatechange adaptation and mitigation. One approach to agriculture has recently been capturedby the widely adopted term of “Climate Smart Agriculture” (CSA). This book not onlyexplains what this entails, but also presents practical on-the-ground studies of practicesand innovations in agriculture across a broader spectrum, including agroecology andconservation agriculture, in less developed countries.

It is shown that CSA is not a completely new science and a number of its recommendedtechnologies have been used for some time by local farmers all over the world. What isrelevant and new is ‘the approach’ to exploit their adaptation and mitigation potential.However, a major limitation is the lack of evidence-based knowledge that is necessaryfor policy makers to prepare strategies for adaptation and mitigation. This book assemblesknowledge of CSA, agroecology and conservation agriculture, and perspectives fromdifferent regions of the world, to build resilient food systems.

2016- The State Of Food and AgricultureClimate Change, Agriculture And Food Security

Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2016, 190 p.

The 2016 SOFA report presents evidence on today and tomorrow’s impact of climatechange on agriculture and food systems. The report assesses the options to makeagriculture and food systems resilient to climate change impacts, while minimizingenvironmental impacts. It shows that making agriculture and food systems sustainable isboth economically and technically feasible. However barriers to the adoption ofappropriate technologies and management practices will have to be lowered, especiallyfor smallholder farmers and women farmers amongst them. Likewise, an overhaul isneeded of agricultural and food policies to shift incentives in favour of investments,worldwide, in sustainable technologies and practices.


SOURCESMulti-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Water Management

Jeroen Warner, 2007, Routledge, 298 p., £34.99, ISBN: 9781138266148

As they provide a negotiating space for a diversity of interests, Multi-StakeholderPlatforms (MSPs) are an increasingly popular mode of involving civil society in resourcemanagement decisions. This book focuses on water management to take a positive, ifcritical, look at this phenomenon. Illustrated by a wide geographical range of case studiesfrom both developed and developing worlds, it recognizes that MSPs will neitherautomatically break down divides nor bring actors to the table on an equal footing, andargues that MSPs may in some cases do more harm than good. The volume then examineshow MSPs can make a difference and how they might successfully co-opt the public,private and civil-society sectors. The book highlights the particular difficulties of MSPswhen dealing with integrated water management programmes, explaining how MSPsare most successful at a less complex and more local level. It finally questions whetherMSPs are - or can be - sustainable, and puts forward suggestions for improving theirdurability.

A Stakeholder Approach to Managing FoodLocal, National, and Global Issues

Adam Lindgreen, Martin K. Hingley, Robert J. Angell, Juliet Memery (Eds.),2017, Routledge, 332 p.

This research anthology explores the concept of food production and supply, from farmgate to plate, bringing together contemporary thinking and research on local, national,and global issues from a stakeholder perspective.

A Stakeholder Approach to Managing Food includes a number of sections to representthese challenges, opportunities, conflicts, and cohesions affecting relevant stakeholdergroups within food production and supply and their reaction to, engagement with, andco-creation of the food environment. With an in-depth analysis of agricultural businesses,this book shows that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in rural communitieswith often renewed and engaged connection with consumers and imaginative use ofnew media.

This book will be of interest to students, researchers and policy-makers concerned withagriculture, food production and economics, cultural studies.

Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water GovernanceOECD Studies on Water

OECD, 2015, OECD Publishing, 276 p, €58, E-book, ISBN: 9789264231122

This report assesses the current trends, drivers, obstacles, mechanisms, impacts, costsand benefits of stakeholder engagement in the water sector. It builds on empirical datacollected through an extensive survey across 215 stakeholders, within and outside thewater sector, and 69 case studies collected worldwide. It highlights the increasingimportance of stakeholder engagement in the water sector as a principle of goodgovernance and the need for better understanding of the pressing and emerging issuesrelated to stakeholder engagement. These include: the shift of power across stakeholders;the arrival of new entrants that ought to be considered; the external and internal driversthat have triggered engagement processes; innovative tools that have emerged to managethe interface between multiple players, and types of costs and benefits incurred byengagement at policy and project levels. This report provides pragmatic policy guidanceto decision makers and practitioners in the form of key principles and a Checklist forPublic Action with indicators, international references and self-assessment questions,which together can help policy makers to set up the appropriate framework conditionsneeded to yield the short and long-term benefits of stakeholder engagement.


30

Institutions come together inpromoting organic farmingS Vallal Kannan, P Ananda Priya and P Tamilselvi

Mainstream agriculture institutions through collaborativeinitiatives are playing a role in promoting organicagriculture. Krishi Vigyan Kendra in Karur with its multiinstitutional approach helped farmers in Karur district toswitch over to organic ways of farming, in turn helping themincrease their net incomes and farm employment, besidesbuilding self reliance.

Even though India has vast potential for organicproduction and marketing, its achievement onproduction, certification and export is low due to

various reasons. Lack of sufficient education on productionwith specific standards, lack of easy accessible informationon organic methods, requirements and markets for interestedfarmers, lack of good consumer information on organicfarming and organic food, high distribution costs, lack ofeffective documentation and dissemination of researchresults among farmers and advisors, insufficient practicalorientation of research etc., are some among them.

During a PRA and focus group discussions, Krishi VigyanKendra (KVK) in Karur identified the problems faced bythe organic growers of Karur district, such as lowproductivity, improper recycling of farm wastes, lowremunerative price, lack of markets, lack of information andknowledge on organic agriculture etc. To promote organicfarming, to increase the productivity and to help smallholders in group certification, KVK Karur started workingwith the farmers in the region.

The villages were grouped into clusters based on closegeographical proximity and uniformity in farming system.About 4 clusters were formed covering 63 groups. Majorcrops grown in these clusters are paddy, sugarcane, banana,groundnut, and millets and horticultural crops likevegetables, tapioca and banana.

Institutional ApproachKVK Karur has been promoting organic farming in thedistrict through Institutional Approach. It worked with StateAgriculture Universities (SAUs) and Research Stations forinformation on production aspects, National Center onOrganic Farming (NCOF) for financial support, APEDA forstandards and quality control, marketing institutions formarketing information and procurement and disseminationof technology and with peoples institutions at the clusterlevel. Each institution had a specific role to play.

Capacity buildingTrainings and demonstrations were organized for knowledgeand skill up gradation. Trainings were imparted to farmerson organic farming with various topics like soil fertilitymanagement, principles and practices of organic farming,organic input production technologies, use of naturalresources and ITK, documentation in organic farming and

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Exhibition of organic products and technologies


To create awareness among consumers,exhibitions were organized at different

places. Also an excellent network formarketing of organic produce was

established with the market promoters.

certification, post harvest techniques etc., both at farmer’sfield and in KVK campus. During 2006-08, around 3402farmers were trained by KVK.

Demonstrations were conducted on the use of bioinputs anduse of biogas slurry. Demonstration on use of bio inputswas done with the financial support of NCOF, Ghaziabad.Three demonstrations were conducted in paddy, bhendi andbanana in the villages of Vadaseri, Archampatty andMuthalaipatty respectively on bio inputs. It had createdconfidence among the farmers on organic productiontechnologies and other fellow farmers have accepted to adoptthese technologies on trial basis in minimum area. The inputsnamely bio-fertilizers and bio pesticides, (Azospirillum,Phosphobacteria, Pseudomonas & Trichoderma), biocontrol agents (Trichogramma japonicum,. TrichogrammaChilonis), green manures (Sunhemp, Daincha, Calotropis,Avarai, Kolinji) and animal based manures and growthpromoters (Panchakavya, Amirthapani, Vermicompost,vermiwash, fish amino acids, fruits extracts), traps,botanicals and various enriched manures were supplied tofarmers.

Importance of enriched biogas slurry was demonstrated atfive locations in the crops viz., sesame, sunflower andgroundnut. Biogas slurry was enriched with nitrogen fixingand nutrient solubilizing bacteria and fungi and thistechnology and its usage were demonstrated in addition tothe use of various organic inputs. Pulutheri, Seethapatti,Vadasery, Tharagampatti and R.T. Malai from Kulithalai andKadavur blocks farmers were involved in thesedemonstrations.

Wider awarenessExhibitions, mass media programmes and exposure visitswere organized to create awareness on a larger scale. Morethan 760 farmers were exposed to organic farming conceptsby organising around 14 visits during 2006 to 2008. Around21 exhibitions were organized at various locations during2006-2008 and nearly 20000 farmers, farm women, ruralyouth and extension functionaries have participated.Through these exhibitions, awareness on organic farmingand its importance was created widely among the farmingcommunity of Karur and nearby districts and also developedexcellent network among the organic growers and betweenorganic growers and consumers of organic produce.

Similarly, mass media like TV, radio and newspapers wereutilized for wider reach. Several publications in the form offolders, booklets and manuals were brought out. Quarterlynewsletters “Organic renaissance” were published to sharelatest updates and trends in organic farming.

An impact study conducted with sample farmers indicatedthat, by 2008, around 83% of the respondents had high levelof knowledge on organic farming in all aspects like principlesof organic farming, soil fertility improvement, land selectionfor organic farming, pest and disease management, postharvest technologies and documentation and certificationprocess etc. This is almost double when compared to thefigures of 2005, wherein only 42% of the respondents hadhigh knowledge levels. This can be attributed to morenumber of trainings, demonstrations and extension activitiesorganized by the KVK at regular intervals.

Farmers as technocrats adopting organic farmingpracticesMajority of the respondents (85%) were found to adopt theorganic farming practices in scientific manner -from fieldselection to harvest and marketing. Around 96 organicgrowers group were organized – 27 in 2006, 47 in 2007 and22 in 2008. There were around 1930 organic farmersregistered in these groups. In each group a leader wasidentified on consensus mode and they were trained onorganic farming in standards for organic cultivation,documentation and procedure for certification andmarketing. By this way the group leaders emerged astechnocrats and disseminated the technology. They were alsoresponsible for documentation and maintenance of thestandards. During 2006, four organic growers started servingas technocrats, which further increased to 17 in 2007 and53 in 2008. With technocrats, technology spread was high.Belonging to the local area, their acceptance and credibilitywere high.

The registered farmers allotted specific area for organicfarming. In these small areas they started implementingorganic practices with the support of KVK. In 2006, 116.82hectares were under organic farming cultivated by 532registered farmers. The crops grown were paddy, banana,sesame, sunflower, groundnut, green gram and black grametc. In 2007, the area under organic farming increased to269.63 hectares.

Increasing self relianceMost of the organic inputs were produced locally reducingdependence on external inputs. The most widely used organic


32

manure is vermi compost. Totally 44farmers in the operational area startedvermi compost production units.Vermicompost produced was used ontheir own fields and the surplus was soldto others in the village. The remainingfarmers used farm yard manures,enriched farm yard manures with biofertilizers for basal application. The totalproduction capacity of the 44 vermicompost production is 399 tonnes peryear.

Majority of the farmers preparedPanchagavya and Insect repellentswhenever they needed. To supplementthe organic input requirements, 18 unitsto produce Panchagavya and insectrepellents were established during 2006and the same had increased upto 56during 2008 for large scale production.

Use of organic inputs reduced the input cost while theorganically grown produce fetched additional price, leadingto additional net income of about Rs. 1130, Rs 1250 andRs. 1820/ha during 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively.Establishment of various organic production units createdadditional employment opportunities of around 142, 198 and210 man days during 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively.

Linking producers and consumersConsequent to increase in area under organic farming, theavailability of the organic products in Karur district, alsoincreased. To create awareness among consumers,exhibitions were organized at different places. Also anexcellent network for marketing of organic produce wasestablished with the market promoters. KVK alsoparticipated in various exhibitions both at the state and atthe national level and created special market for organicsesame. With the support of KVK, processing units fororganic sesame and organic rice were also established.Through certified processing units, the availability ofprocessed products increased in the district.

ConclusionKrishi Vigyan Kendras are established to serve asKnowledge and Resource Centres for improving theagricultural economy of the district by linking the nationalresearch with extension system and farmers. Through theirinterventions, KVK Karur has played its role by helpingfarmers to switch over to eco-friendly organic practices. Thiswas possible owing to their multi agency approach involving

various institutions like State Agricultural University (SAU),National Centre for Organic Farming (NCOF), Agriculturaland Processed Food Products Export Development Authority(APEDA), Processing Institutes etc. Farmers in the regionare now better equipped to adopt organic way of farming,which is more remunerative and less dependent on externalinputs.

S Vallal KannanKVK KarurPulutheri village, R T Malai Post,Kulithalai Taluk, Karur DistrictTamil NaduE-mail: [email protected]

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Organic input production unit


Over the last few decades massive technologicaldevelopment and new opportunities have transformedpeople’s lives. However, these opportunities have notbenefited the agriculture sector in a significant way. Accessto timely and relevant information can benefit allstakeholders in the agriculture ecosystem. Information andCommunication Technologies (ICTs) will play a key role inknowledge exchange, targeted recommendations, marketintegration and access to finance to make agriculture aprofitable enterprise.

Partnerships promoting digitalplatformsAmit Chakravarty Agricultural production issues cannot be considered

in isolation from environmental issues. The use ofdigital tools in agriculture helps the diverse set of

stakeholders in any given context to meet the competingdemands of increased production, ecological sustainability,food security, economic viability, resource conservation andsocial equity. Use of modern ICT tools in agriculture helpreduce transaction costs; improve market transparency;promote efficient logistics and provide financial inclusionand insurance. Tools ranging from data analytics and remotesensing to information delivery through mobile phones helpsstakeholders coordinate and improve efficiencies across thevalue chain. This enables every actor in the value chaindeliver the goods and services required by the other actors,thus acting in unison to promote agroecology. Timelyinformation helps stakeholders act in a concerted mannerto create a win-win situation for all.

Women trying out use of tabs

Phot

o: A

utho

r


34

India has a long history of use of ICTs for agriculture. Someof the early pioneers were Warna Wired village (launchedin 1998), Gyandoot (launched in 2000), Nokia Life(launched in 2009), Reuters Market Light (launched in2007), e-Sagu (launched in 2004), e-Krishi, e-Choupal,iKisan. Initiatives like Gyandoot, Warna Wired Village andNokia Life were not limited to agriculture. They alsoprovided information on other aspects like education, health,entertainment, provision of government services like birth/death certificates, copies of land titles, information ongovernment schemes, government subsidies, and a varietyof other information and services. The other initiativesmentioned above are more focused on providing informationand services related to agriculture only. There is a mix ofgovernment-led projects, non-government organization(NGO)-led projects, as well as private sector driven projects.In terms of information delivery channels, the primarychannels are: (i) operator-mediated computer kiosk; (ii)telephony (call centers and mobile phones); (iii) web portalsand (iv) different combinations of first three channels.

One of the primary premises behind the use of ICT inagriculture is that lack of information is a major impedimentto improving farmers’ livelihoods. Hence the deploymentof early generation ICTs has been primarily for informationdissemination. However, today we have at our disposal toolsfor (a) capturing and processing large amounts of data; (b)analytics tools and decision support systems; (c) systemsthat can be operated and monitored remotely.

ICRISAT has been continuously innovating in working withsmallholder farmers to meet the contemporary challengesof agriculture. These challenges have evolved from themerely technical to also include social, cultural, economicand particularly environmental concerns. Using new toolslike drones, ICRISAT has innovated beyond the traditionaluse of ICTs for information delivery. Described below aresome of our initiatives that use modern tools as well astraditional ones to enable all stakeholders work in concertto improve the lives of smallholder farmers across sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

Phot

o: A

utho

r

A woman trains others in the use of digital tools


Sample text message sent on 27 June1. Sowing rainfed groundnut crop can be initiated2. Before sowing, seed treatment is essential3. Prevention of seed and soil borne diseases is very important4. Treat one kg seed with 3g of Thiram or Captan or Mancozeb5. Wherever white grubs are problematic, treat one kg seed with

6.5 ml Chlorpyriphos before sowing6. While sowing, ensure optimum soil moisture7. Place the seeds at a depth of about 5 cm in the soil

Data analytics and business intelligence to empowerfarmersA new sowing application for farmers combined with aPersonalized Village Advisory Dashboard will help farmerspick the right sowing time, thus helping them avoiduncertainty due to climate change. This is being piloted inAndhra Pradesh. The sowing app will help farmers achieveoptimal harvests by advising on the best time to sow cropsdepending on weather conditions, soil and other indicators.

The sowing application utilizes powerful artificialintelligence to interface with weather forecasting modelsprovided by USA based aWhere Inc. and extensive dataincluding rainfall over the last 45 years as well as 10 yearsof groundnut sowing progress data for Kurnool district. Thisdata is then downscaled to build predictability and guidefarmers to pick the ideal sowing week. When combined withother data collected from, it can create rich datasets that canbe processed to build predictive models for the farmers.

Similarly, the Personalized Village Advisory Dashboardprovides an instant overview across several environmentalfactors that determine a healthy crop yield. In a pilot that iscurrently in progress, information will be sent to farmersabout the sowing date via SMS in Telugu. Data collectedmanually from 10000 hectares each in the 13 districts ofthe state by ICRISAT field officers has been uploaded toMicrosoft’s Azure Cloud.

The use of advanced analytics in agriculture will helpstreamline and strengthen farming practices. The SowingApp and Personalized Village Advisory Dashboard providepowerful cloud-based predictive analytics to empower

farmers with crucial information and insights to help reducecrop failures and increase yield, in turn, reducing stress andgenerating better income. It has been developed through apartnership between Andhra Pradesh government, Microsoft,aWhere, and ICRISAT under the Rythu Kosam projectfunded by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A localgrassroots organisation, Chaitanya Youth Association,working in Kurnool, is supporting this initiative in the field.

On the groundShivappa is one angry farmer. “How come I don’t get anymessages that the others are getting,” he protestedvehemently when the ICRISAT team visited his village. Sodid Yusuf Basha and Madanna Kandappa of Kurnool districtof Andhra Pradesh, India.

Since 15 June farmers of Devanakonda village in Kurnoolhave been getting advisories as text messages on their mobilephones informing them the right time to sow and thepreparations needed before sowing. Currently 175 farmers,out of around 1,000 farmers, are receiving these advisoriesinforming them the best time to sow depending on weatherconditions, the crops they grow, soil health and otherindicators.

Farmers in Devanakonda and surrounding villages areprimarily dependent on rains for farming. Around 60% ofthe cultivated area is under groundnut followed by cotton(22%) and castor (17%). Other crops grown are pigeonpea,chillies and vegetables.

The advisories, for groundnut production, are sent in thelocal language Telugu as well as English. Many farmers ownfirst generation feature phones which may not support thelocal language, hence messages are also sent in English. Toovercome the literacy barrier, some designated farmers aregiven the responsibility of conveying the message to othersand the possibility of sending voice messages is beingexplored.

Phot

o: A

utho

rMen using mobiles to access information


36Follow us on: @LeisaIndiawww.facebook.com/Leisaindiamag

Ms. Rameshwaramma is very happy with the advisoryservice. She planted groundnut in 1.5 ha and followed alladvice such as gypsum application, opening up furrows formoisture conservation, intercropping with pigeonpea andmicronutrient application. Today she has a healthy crop toshow for her efforts.

Many farmers like Shivappa who were not subscribing tothe messages earlier are now eager to sign up, seeing howtheir neighbours have benefited. Tracking the farmers showsthat from 24 June when the farmers were advised to startsowing, the percentage of area sown went up from 15% to100% by 4 July.

ConclusionThis initiative brings together a cross-section of stakeholderson a common platform to empower smallholder farmers. Inthe face of climate change, helping farmers reduce risk byempowering them with information to take the rightdecisions, introducing crop diversity in farming systems asa risk mitigating measure, introducing tools and technologiesfor climate-smart agriculture require diverse stakeholders –farmers, research institutes, government, NGOs and thecorporate sector – to come together and work in acoordinated manner to make agriculture profitable andsustainable.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Dr Suhas Wani, Research Program Director– Asia and Theme Leader- ICRISAT Development Center,ICRISAT, who is leading this project; Dr AVR Kesava Rao,Honorary Fellow, IDC, ICRISAT; Mr G Adi Narayana,Scientific Officer, ICRISAT, Kurnool; Mr V Gopinath,Research Technician, ICRISAT, Kurnool; Dr PrabhakarPathak, Consultant, IDC, and District Coordinator, Kurnooldistrict, AP Rythu Kosam Project and Mr C Madhusudan,Project Officer, and other staff of Chaitanya YouthAssociation. This work was undertaken under the AP RythuKosam Project funded by the Government of AndhraPradesh.

Amit ChakravartySenior ManagerICRISAT, PatancheruHyderabadE-mail: [email protected]

Phot

o: A

utho

r

Rameshwaramma in her groundnut fields

www.leisaindia.org

december 2016 volume 18 no.4 leis india · leisa india december 2016 2 a december 2016 volume 18...

Documents