eco friendly technologies in himalaya-dr. r maikhuri

8/9/2019 Eco Friendly Technologies in Himalaya-Dr. R Maikhuri

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eco-friendly-technologies-in-himalaya-dr-r-maikhuri 1/9

822

Indian Journal of Science and Technology Vol. 3 No. 7 (July 2010) ISSN: 0974- 6846

Research article “Himalayan resource management” Maikhuri et al.©Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) http://www.indjst.org Indian J.Sci.Techno

Demonstration and dissemination of simple eco-friendly technologies for natural resource management incentral Himalaya

R.K.Maikhuri

1,L.S.Rawat

1,VikramS.Negi

1, AbhayBahuguna

1,SunilK.Agarwal

2,

N.A.Faroouquee3,PrakashPhondani1andC.S.Negi11 G.BPantInstituteofHimalayanEnvironment&Development,GarhwalUnit,SrinagarGarhwal,Uttarakhand,246174

2 ScienceandSocietyDivision,DepartmentofScienceandTechnology,NewDelhi-110016,India;3 SchoolofExtensionandDevelopmentalStudies,RoomNo5,B-Block,IGNOU,Maidangadi,NewDelhi,110068,India

[email protected];[email protected]

AbstractWepresenttheoutcomeofinnovativeactionresearchascapacitybuildingformarginalandsmallholderfarmersanotherstakeholdersof CentralHimalayathroughstrengtheningsocial organizationandentrepreneurial initiatives.Bthis,GBPIHED(Garhwal unit) establishedrural technologydemonstrationand trainingand capacitybuildingcent(RTDTC)atthreedifferentlocationsequippedwith13-15simpleandspecifictechnologies.About41onsitetrainincapacity building and skill development programme were organized since 2000 in which 3860 participants we

trained. The participants were provided on site demonstration, training and technical know-how about variotechnologies,whichenablebetterunderstandingofproblemsfacedbythefarmersaswellassustainablemanagemeofnaturalresources.Consistentmonitoringduringandafter theprogramme,feedbackfrompeopleafteradoptiontechnologies and income earned by each households from individual or grouped of technologies adopted weevaluated and analyzed.The documentation and analysis of action research (quantitative & qualitative) and darelatedtocostbenefitanalysisofthetechnologiesadoptedbyfarmersgeneratedthroughthisstudyhascreatedrooforwidersharingoffarmertrainingoutputsbothat thefarmlevel,andamongstthescientificcommunitiesandpolimakers. Furthermore, the programme has shown that there is a need to develop and update location specimodificationsintechnologieshasalreadybeenintroduced/developedsoastomaximizethesustainableuseoflocnaturalresourcesandreducethecostuseofexternalinputs.

Keywords:Himalaya,sustainablemanagement,ruraldevelopment,farmers,naturalresources,India,economyIntroduction

The central Himalayan Mountains (CHM) is wellknown for its rich and diverse natural bioresources.However,duringrecentpastduetoincreasedpopulationpressure from within the mountain region, largelyexacerbated by external pressures from the industrialsocieties from the plains, has contributed to majorchanges in the environment and the associated rapiddepletion of natural resources. All these factors forcerural poor and marginal communities of this region tomigrateandexplorebetteroptionsoflivelihoodearninginthe urbanand semi-urban centres located in the plains(Rao et al., 1999; Rawatet al., 1996; Maikhuriet al.,

2005). Technology change is considered an importantinstrumentin thecontinuousprocessof socio-economicdevelopment but due to poor access to suitabletechnologies is one of the main causes of poverty,drudgeryandnaturalresourcesdegradationinthecentralHimalaya.So,tominimizetheexistingrateofmigration,introduction of promising technologies in most of thesectorsofruraleconomyisurgentlyrequiredwhichwouldnot only provide livelihood and food security locally butalsocontribute towardsminimizing existingpressureonnaturalresources(Maikhurietal.,2007a,b).

Oflate,developmentplannersandextensionworkerhaverealizedthe importanceofpromisingtechnologiesandtherefore,stronglyemphasizedtheneedforalargscale demonstrations and establishment of technologresource centres in rural and marginal areas of thmountains(Palni,1996;Joshietal.,1998;Purohit,1988Rawatetal.,1998;Vyasetal.,1999;Maikhurietal.,2007a, b). These centres are expected not only to develolocation specific technologies and suitable interventiomechanismsbut also play a catalytic role tobridge thinformationgapbetweentechnologydevelopersandthlocal resource users. Therefore, establishment of RuraTechnologyDemonstrationandTrainingCentre(RTDTC

in rural setup has been perceived anaction that couprovideviableoptionsforimprovingtheyieldpotentialofarmproduce,incomegeneration fromoff-farmactivitieas well as conservation and efficient management oexisting natural resources through implementation oappropriate technologies for sustainable ruradevelopmentincentralHimalaya. The major objectives of the participatory actioresearch include: a). Demonstrations oimproved/alternative and already available hill specifitechnologiesintheRTDTCandatselectedfieldsites.b)



823



Development of a framework and participatory actionresearchapproachesforachievingself-sufficiencywithinthesystemintheshortandlongtermbasisc).Capacitybuilding through training/live demonstrations/fieldexerciseoftargetgroupsandtrainingoftrainers(TOT)onaregularbasisthroughtheprocessoflearningbydoing.

d). Cost-benefit analysis of different technologiestested/experimented/demonstratedonsmallerscale,ande). Guidance and support for field implementation oftechnology packages and subsequent monitoring,evaluation, follow-upand adoption.Theoverall goals ofthese participatory action research centres are to trainand build capacities of local farmers and other usergroupsandtomakethemadoptsomeofthepromising,low cost, hill specific rural technologies in participatorymode. It was done with the hope that the improvedcapacitiesof local farmershelpwidespread adoption ofrural technologies and thus expand the existing limitedlivelihood earning opportunities in remote and far flung

isolatedareasofthispartofHimalayanregion.Methodologies Beforeinitiatingtheprogramme(Table1),anin-depthrapid rural appraisal survey was carried out in fewselected cluster of villages of the region in order toidentify and select progressive farmers interested toreceivesustainedtrainingandexposureatdemonstrationsites. Participants were selected in consultation withvillage leaders/elders those having some elementaryknowledgeand interest in learningnewtechnologies. Inaddition,village councilspreferredto select participantsbelongingtoeconomicallyweakersectionsofthesocietytobeprovidedtraining.Participatorylearningandsharingofknowledgewastheprocessadoptedduringthepresent

field based capacity building programme. A total of 42trainingprogrammes (30 training programme each of3days & 12 training programme each of 2 days) wereorganized at demonstration sites for differentstakeholders including farmers, students, NGOs andofficials of government line departments for capacitybuildingandskill development.Effectivemonitoringandevaluation mechanism was developed to measure thesuccesses of the programme. The extent of skilldevelopment of each technology and resourcesavailability formed the basis for the maintaining andtechnologytransfer,replication/adoptionstrategies. The cost-benefit analysis of each technology

demonstratedatthesiteswasworkedoutandwasmainlydepends on the nature of intervention, materials/itemsrequired for infrastructure development, land areatreated/covered and othermonetary inputs, yieldof theproducts (agro&others)and theirmonetaryequivalent.The major monetary inputs for the technologiestested/demonstrated mainly includes materials/itemssuch as iron rod, UV polythene, naisal, rope, bamboopoles, sand, cement, brick/stone, honeybee colony andrearingboxandkits(i.e.swarmingbag,waxcomb,queenguards), vegetable seeds, mushroom spores, sugar,

preservative, plastic containers, barbed wire, etc. Thmonetary output includes yield of the produce/productand their monetary equivalent based on the currenmarket rates. The manpower required for differenactivities/operations under each technology wacalculated based on the prevailing daily wage labou

rates(Table2).Results and discussionThe research framework of stakeholders trainingprogramme Thoughcapacitybuildingandtrainingprogrammewainitiatedmainlytoprovidetechnicalinputstolocalfarmeand local institutions in rural technologies, a number onewissuesbeganemergingduringinitialinteractionswitlocal communities. This led to redesigning, testing andevelopment of modified approaches for making thprogrammemoreeffectiveandsuccessful(Fig.1).ThushadbeenlearnedthatconstructinganyR&Dframeworkitwasusefultoconsiderhowdifferentsetsoflocalsocio

economicandecologicalissuesinterdependentandinterelated with each other (Maikhuriet al., 2005). It wasrealized that inter-disciplinary team (one involving botpractioners & researchers) need to be constituted temploy different methodologies and approachesimultaneously in order to address the complex issuerelated to technology completion (Palni, 1996). It waobserved that each trained member of ainter-disciplinary team strengthen the developinapproaches by integrating the sheer diversity operspectivesandexperiencesintotheframeworkthatito be implemented. In order to achieve effectivimplementation of eco-friendly and hill specifitechnologies it is essential to ensure that partnersan

stakeholders acquire and constantly improve thecapacitiesandproviderelevantpracticalskills(Rawateal., 1996;Joshietal., 1998). Training needs tobe “puintopractice” in thecontextofdifferent targetaudienceThus approaches that make training process morflexible, adaptive, responsive and applicable werconsideredimportant. The integrated framework developed taking intaccount the experiences and expertise of differendisciplineswasabletoprovidethemosteffectivewayounderstanding the issues and solving the problemrelated to rural technology adoption. Transfer otechnology (TOT) requires high levels of planning

management and evaluation skills to ensure clarity opurpose, focused partnerships and assessment oeffective progress. The level of knowledge, skillsenthusiasm and values of the user groups werconsideredkeyfactorsinstimulatingthelearner’sinteresandappreciationofimplementationofruraltechnologiesIn addition, it was considered that a number of othefactors including policy and regulatory environmennature of resource base, local capacities, externasupport,andprevailingnaturalresourcesmanagement



824



Table1.Listofsimplehillspecifictechnologies(groupedunderdifferentcategories)introduced&demonstratedindemonstrationcentreatdifferentlocations

Technologies

Functions Advantage

(A)Protectedcultivation

Polyhouse

Thepolythenesheet(150gsmthick)usedintheconstruction

ofapolyhousepreventstheentryoftheultravioletraysandconserves green house gases, enhance the efficiency ofplant growth and development. The temperature andmoisture inside the polyhouse is greater as compared tooutside environment, which enhances the rate ofphotosynthesis and helps in better and uniform growth ofplants(Palni,1996;Palni&Rawat,2000).

It is used for enhancing the production

quality vegetables, flowers and ornamenplantsetc.andalsoprovidesprotectiontocrofrom severe effect of frost and cold adiseases.Itisveryusefulinhighaltitudearefor vegetables cultivation round the year.Tper unit area productions can alsoenhanced. It is particularly useful for farmehaving small landholding inwhichmulti-tiercultivation in trays with the help of rackspossible.Thesizeofpolyhousedependsuptheneedandresourcesavailablewithfarmer

Shadenet

house

Anethousethatprotectsthecropsgrowninsidefromharmfulultravioletraysaswellasfrom60%infraredradiation.Thusanethouse saves the plants from extreme summer

temperature and help in maintaining required air and soilmoisture (Maikhurietal.,2007a).

It is useful for the farmers with small holdiandcanbeusedeffectivelylikepolyhouse.

seasonal vegetables cultivation and nurseraisingofmedicinalplantsprovide better yieundernethouse.

Polypit

Polypit technique is used for cultivation of off- seasonvegetables, tree and growing other crops. It is equallybeneficial as polyhouse. The polypit trench helps in thebufferingoftemperatureinsideresultingintoincreasedCO 2

fertilizationeffect,andalsominimizesthewaterrequirement(Palni,1996).

Itisasimple,lowcost,practicableandeffectitechnique for raising and protecting plamaterialsfromseverewinter temperature. Itequallybeneficialaspolyhouse.

(B)Organiccompost&biofertilizer

Bio

composting

The compost prepared through traditional methods usuallytakes 8-10 months to fully decompose. However, compostprepared through improved techniques in whichweeds/dryleaves,mixedwithcowdungandisplacedkeptinsidethepit.

Pitiscoveredwithpolytheensheetoverabambooframetochektheentryofrainwaterandheatlossduringtheprocessofdecomposition.Throughthismethodcompostgetsreadyfor use between 30-45 day depending upon the materialsused(Palni,1996;Maikhurietal.,2007a).

Thecompostpreparedthroughthistechniquericherinnutrientsascomparedtothecompoprepared traditionally. Through this techniqu

the decomposing time as well as lossnutrientscanbeminimizedconsiderably.

Vermicomposting

Vermicompostisasimpletechniqueinwhichbiodegradablewaste i.e. agricultural and vegetable residues, weeds,excreta of animals etc are converted into organic manurewiththehelpofearthworms.Inthisprocesstheearthworms(Eisenia foetida species used at demonstration sites) arebredinamixtureofcowdung,soilandagriculturalresidues(Maikhurietal.,2007a).

Vermicompost provides the necessaingredient for optimum growth of cultivatplants. Continuous use of vermicomporeplenishes soil fertility quickly by improviphysico-chemical and biological propertiesthelessfertilesoils.Itsapplicationalsoreductheuseofpesticides.

Vermiwash

Vermiwashisa liquiformbiocompost,appliedon vegetablesand horticultural crops through sprinkling. The compost

consistsofnecessaryingredientusefulforplantgrowthanddevelopmentincludingnitrogen,potassium,andphosphorus.Thusitisanexcellentsourceofnutrientsforplantgrowthandcouldalsobeusedaspesticideinleafyvegetables(Maikhurietal.,2007a).

It helps in enhancing the number of mac

microorganismsandessentialelementsinsfor plant growth and development. It actspesticidesandalsoimprovessoilfertility.

Azollaculture

Azolla is an aquatic fern that floats on water surface offloodedricefields,smallpondsandcanals.Bytheprocessofnitrogenfixationthebluegreenalgaiscapableoffullfillingthe nitrogen requirement of the association and it can fixabout3-5kgN/ha/day.Theplantishighlyproductivewiththeabilityproliferaterapidlydoublingitsbiomassinevery7days(Maikhurietal.,2007a)

It fixes nitrogen, grows rapidly, and ensurquick coverage of the areas and suppressweedgrowth.Azollacanaccumulatenutriefrom water and provide these afdecomposition.

Table1contd…



825



practicesthatsignificantly influencetheeffectivenessoftheintegratedframeworkduringfieldimplementation.Theapproach initiated had well defined criteria, indicators,andpurposesthatweredevelopedbyamulti-disciplinaryteam of scientists and experts involved in this ruraltechnology transfer programme. The frameworkdeveloped was successfully adopted/implemented by

farmers in several villages in the region that hagenerated ecologically sound, economically viablesocially acceptable, and institutionally enforceabloutputs.Communityoutreach,mobilizationandimprovingaccess Anunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenexistincapacitiesandhumanresourcedevelopmentwas

Table1contd ………(C)Off-farmtechnologies

Mushroomcultivation

Oyster mushroom (Pleurotu s sp, locally known asdhingari) offers a protein rich diet, which can begrownwithinatemperaturerangeof10-30oCuptoanaltitudeof 2600m. Itscultivationrequiresstraw

(wheat/paddy), soaked in the water at 70-80

o

Ctemperatureforaboutonehourandkeptasidesoastoremoveexcesswater.Thusthestrawgetsreadyfor spawn (mushroom spore) cultivation (Palni,1996;Maikhurietal.,2007a).

It is a good substitute /source ofemployment for landless farmers andunemployedpeople.Itsproductioncanbestarted in a room at low cost. It is

consideredasthebestfoodfordiabeticandheartpatients.

Honeybeerearing

Because of diversity of rich flora, the hills andmountains of Uttarakhand are suitable for beerearing. Majority of the flowering plants requirehoneybees for cross-pollination for higher qualityyields(Maikhurietal.,2007a).

Honeyisusedasamedicineandbeesareknowntobeagoodpollinatorandimprovetheagriculturalproduction.

Bioprospectingofwild/wemi-

domesticatedFruits

Wild edible bioresources are being viewed asuntappedorunderutilizedresourcesthatcouldplaya significant role in hill area development, povertyalleviation,livelihoodandnutritionalsecurityoflocal

communities through appropriate technologicalinterventions and local value addition (Maikhurietal.,1994,1999;2007b;Dhyanietal.,,2007).

Farmers have adopted this as smallhousehold activity for income generation.Thevariouslocalvalueaddedproductsi.e.squash, juice, jam, pickle, sauce etc. are

being prepared from about 25 wild plantspecies by the people for their householdconsumptionandalsoformarketing.

(D)Othersupportingtechnologies

Biobrequetting

Biobrequettingisanimprovedtraditionalpracticeforconversionofweedsandwastebiomassformakinglow cost, energy efficient, non hazardous fuel(Purohit,2007).

Biobriquetteisutilizedinwinterforwarmingandroomheating.Itcanbeusedinroomsinceit issmokelessand can bepreparedveryeasily.Itsapplicationmayalsohelpinforestconservation.

Zeroenergycoolchamber

It is cost-effective, simple, eco-friendly and easilyadoptabletechniquewhichworksontheprincipleofevaporative cooling, i.e. cooling effect due toevaporation of water. The chamber can maintainthe temperature 10-120°C less than the outsidetemperature and conserve about 90% relativehumidity.

There is no need of electricity for itsoperation. In this chamber, small farmerscan keep their agro-products andvegetablesfor longer duration in fresh andpreservedcondition.This structuremay beutilized topreserve thedomesticfood itemlike milk, curd, ghee, water etc exceptcookedfood.

Waterharvestingtank

Low cost water harvesting tank store rainwater/unusedspringorwastewaterforirrigationandotherpurposeduringleanperiod.Thistechniqueisofgreatvalueforareashavingpaucityofwaterforlivestockandminorirrigationneeds(Maikhuri etal.,2007a).

The water harvesting tank technology iseasyandcost-effective.Itcanretainwaterforayearinwaterdeficientareasforminorirrigationandthushelpssavethetimeandminimizedrudgery.

Sweettechnology

Slopping Watershed Environmental EngineeringTechnology (SWEET) is a cost-effecting mostlydesigned to rehabilate/restore sloping waste landsbelongs tovillagecommunity and private owner inthe Himalaya. It involves use of lowcostbioengineering measures with active people'sparticipationtochecktheenvironmentaldegradationandprovideopportunityforincomegeneration(Raoetal.,1999).

Capitalizing upon the positive aspect oftraditionalknowledgeandsupplementing itwithappropriatescientificinnovation,couldsubstantially reduce rehabilitation cost,speed up the rehabilitation process andmobilize local participation so crucial ininaccessibleHimalayanregion.



826



considered critical for making cost-effective technologytransfersthathelpminimizepoverty.Enablingaccesstohillspecific technologieswaspartly aboutmakingmoreproductive, useful technologies available and partlyproviding opportunities (institutional, financial, social,micro-credit, skill etc.) that support access tomarginalizedcommunitiestothesetechnologies.Buildingcommunity'scapacity/skilltomakethesechoicesmeansnotjustbringingnewruraltechnologiestotheirdoorstep,but addressing their organizational capacities andopening new channels of information and knowledge.

ThisisparticularlyimportantintheHimalayanMountainswhere local communities have very limited access tmodernfacilitiesortosecureexternalhelpforsolvingthelocalproblems.Ithasalsoverifiedthatlocalpeopleaninstitutions not only adapt and adopt technologies bualso strengthen their capacities to furtheupgrade/renovate/redesign introduced technologiebasedontheecologicalsetupandresourceavailabilitySomenew approacheswere initiatedanddevelopedbGBPIHED,Garhwalunitwhileintegratingon-site

Fig.1.Participatoryactionresearchandframeworkforappropriateruraltechnologiesdemonstration,dissemination,capacitybuilding,educationandcommunication

Research&developmentsupportParticipatoryimplementationand

demonstrationresearchCapacitybuildingthrough

training,forlocalfarmersandtrainingoftrainers(TOT)

• Identification of locallyavailablenaturalresources

• Documentation of traditionalknowledgeandskill.

• Identification of potentialsectors for technologyintervention.

• Demonstration of potentialtechnological interventions intheruralset-up

Guidanceandsupportforfieldimplementationoftechnologiesin

farmersfield

Networking&informationsharingbetweenexperts&user

groups.

Definingutilityandroleoftechnologies

Followup,monitoring,impactassessmentandevaluation

Developmentoftrainingmanualsandotherliteraturerelatedtotechnologies

Fielddemonstration,research&experimentation(trial)forimprovement/innovationof

technology

Regularscientificmonitoring&assessment

Ruraltechnologiesvalidationscapacitybuilding

• Actionandreplicationbyusergroups

• Capacitybuildingthroughtraining

Successcasestudies Policyrecommendation&extension

Institutionalizationforscalingup&sustainingtheprocess.

Dialoguebetweenpolicyplanners

Usergroupstraininganddemonstrationfor:

• Agroandlandbasedyield/biomass

improvement

• Improvementoflifesupportsystem

• Valueadditionofpotentialbioresources

• Watermanagementandsustainableuse

• Provisionforlivelihoodoptions

• Capacitybuildingandskilldevelopmentinthe

areaofmicro-enterprise&marketingetc.

Documentationofresults,lessonslearnedandpublicity

(books/videos/newspapers/mediaetc.)

LinkagesandnetworkingwithR&Dinstitutions,universities,NGOs,Central/StateGovt.line

departments.



827



experimentation through participatory approaches andfacilitating multi-stakeholders concerted efforts inorganizingcapacitybuildingtrainingprogrammeinwhich

variousstakeholderswere involved (Table3).A total of42 training programmes (each of 2-3 days) on ruraltechnologies were organized in three districts of theUttarakhand (i.e., Tehri, Rudraprayag & Chamoli)between 2001 to 2009. Through these trainingprogrammes a total of 3060participants (1315 farmers,255 extension workers fromNGOs and 105 Officials ofthe government, 2015 students of various standardbelongingtodifferenteducationalinstitutions.Amongthethreetrainingcentres,MalethainTehridistrictreceivedmaximumparticipants (2674) as compared to twoothercenters. The participatory action research anddemonstration centres on rural technologies developedwide popularity and created awareness among the

masses of the region. It has oriented and motivated

school children,universitystudents,farmers,NGOsanofficials of the financial institutions particularly nationabank for agriculture and rural development (NBARD

Amongothers,AlaknandaGraminbankperformedshoexposure visit to the demonstration sites through theown support (Fig.2).About 3014 participants benefittewith maximum number belongs to student categorfollowedbyfarmers,NGOs,etc.(Table2).Monitoringandevaluationmechanism Effectivemonitoring and evaluationmechanism wadeveloped which was diverse and flexible enough tadoptat anygeographical andclimaticconditionsusinsimilar vocabularies, related to professions/economieetc.Theextentof implementation, researchoutputsanvalidation, extent of adoption,usefulnessof technologycost-benefitanalysisandresourceavailabilityformedthebasis for the monitoring and evaluation of technolog

transfer, replication/adoptionstrategies.Overaperiodo

Table2.Capacitybuilding/skilldevelopment&onsitetraining&exposurevisitofdifferentstakeholders(usergroups)inthefieldofeco-friendly,hillspecificruraltechnologiesatthreeruraltechnologydemonstrationsites.Valuesinparenthesisforexposure

visit.

CategoryofParticipantsTehridistrict(Maletha)

Rudraprayagdistrict(Triyuginarayan)

Chamolidistrict(Tapovan)

Total

Farmers 923(423)259(255)

133(102) 1315(780)

NGOs 184(97) 52(47) 19(32) 255(176)

Students(FromSecondarytoPh.D) 787(627) 144(41) 23(28) 954(696)

Students(Juniorlevel) 598(539) 389(254) 74(207) 1061(1000)

Ex-Armypersonnel 64(94) 19(22) 13(24) 96(140)

OfficialofGovt.linedepts. 69(88) 23(26) 13(19) 105(133) Academicians/policyplanners/andofficialsfromfinancialinstitutions

49(53) 16(24) 9(12) 74(89)

Total 2674(1921) 902(669) 284(424) 3860(3014)

Table3.Ruraltechnologyadoption(impactassessment)byfarmingcommunities&otherstakeholders

Technologies Sizeoflandtreated/covered&plantspeciesused

Adoption(no.ofvillages)

Adoptions(no.offamilies)

Averageincome/family/yr(Rs±SE)

Protectedcultivation

Polyhouse(low-cost) 10mx5mx2.5m 13 105 6223(±285)

Nethouse(low-cost) 10mx5mx2.5m 3 16 3958(±135)

Organiccompostingandbiofertilizer

Biocomposting 5mx2mx1m 13 64 1260(±98)

Vermicomposting 5mx2mx1m 16 100 3645(±148)

Azollaculture 10mx2mx.1m 9 37 842(±82)Off-farmtechnologies

Mushroomcultivation 120kgbasematerial* 15 78 3856(±172)Honeybeerearing Singleimprovedwoodenbox 7 24 1578(±123)

BioprospectingofWild/Semi-DomesticatedFruitspecies

Five**potentialplantspeciesused

15 75 4826(±265)

Othersupportingtechnologies

Biobrequetting 1mx1mx1m 11 39 6845(±212)

Sweettechnology 1ha 5 7 2630(±132)

Waterharvestingtank 6mx3mx1.5m 8 19 1443(±120)

Zeroenergycoolchamber 3mx1.5mx1m 5 6 1130(±90)OneUS$=Rs.46;*Wheatstrawofabout80kgwasusedasraw(basematerial)(ondrywt.basis)formushroomcultivation;

**Spondiaspinnata,Hippophaerhamnoides,Aegelmarmelos,Ficusariculata&Rododendronarboretum



828



timewhileimpartingcontinuoustraining,itwasobservedthat the experts themselves sharpen their interactiveskillsandwasabletoconvertafieldproblemintolearningopportunity. Thus, it was a two way learning process,whereexperts(trainers)andlocalfarmersandotherusergroups (trainees) helped improve their respective

capacities.Anumberof trainedfarmersandusergroupsbecame master trainers who subsequently took theresponsibilityforwiderdisseminationofruraltechnologies(Maikhurietal.,2005).Thecapacitybuildingprogrammeessentially seeks to empower farmers so that theythemselvesareabletomoveforwardfromamarginaltoastronger socio-economic position. The skills developedduring training helped local farmers self-confident andcapable of addressing to the problems they encounter.Expertsandtrainersfacilitatedfarmerstocarryouttheseactivities in their rural setup. The way farmers weretrained at demonstration sites is thus radically differentfromthe formal trainingprogrammes inwhich generally

experts deliver lectures to the trainees/beneficiaries ortheextensionworkers to transferrural technologies inaconventional way.Asevident,a top-downapproach inthe past of pushing new technologies for sustainablerural development without transfer of adequateknowledgeandbuildingcapacities to localcommunitiesmostlyfailedtoachievethedesiredobjectives.Therefore,formal institutions have to ensure effective people’sparticipationapplyingbottom upapproachesduring anyintervention(Maikhurietal.,2005).Thepresentapproachwas participatory since the beginning and thereforeremained a continuous process of learning for bothtrainers and trainees. They jointly tried developingappropriatetechnologiesforsustainabledevelopmentby

bringing indiverse livelihoodearningoptionsandat thesametime ensuringconservationofsurrounding naturalresources.Adoptionandfollowup The above approach was considered successful ineffectivelyhelpingfarmerstoadoptmoreproductiveanduseful eco-friendly technologies. As a direct result ofthese efforts, there are now numbers of farmers haveadopted many of these technologies with differentdegrees of success which enhanced their livelihoodsignificantly (Table 4). The organic compost andbiofertilizerswasadoptedbyfarmerstothe largeextent

(201 families) followed by off farm income generatingoptions (177 families) throughwhich theyearned onanaverage of Rs. 5747 and Rs.10,460/family/yearrespectively. About 119 families adopted protectedcultivation followed by supporting technologies (71families) and earned on an average of Rs. 8214 to12048/family/year respectively. Among the technologiesadopted by farmers, the net monetary return wasobtained higher underprotectedcultivation; followedbybio-brequetting, mushroom cultivation, vermicompostingetc.Howeveritwasobservedthattheincomeincreased

gradually after 2nd year onwards because during firsyearnetmonetaryreturnobtainedwaslowandeven isome cases itwas estimated innegativedue tohighecost involved in purchasing the materials focreating/developing infrastructure (i.e., polyhouseshadenet, water harvesting tank, honey bee rearing

sweettechnologyetc.). It was also found that majority of the families (8families)adopted6to7technologiesandearnedabouRs.24,404/family/year, 62 families adopted 4 totechnologies and earned a total of Rs.20, 615 and 5families adopted 2 to 3 technologies from which theearnedanaverageofRs.7616/family/yr.The numberofarmersadoptedvermicompostingandbio-compostingishigher since organic manure required for sustaininagriculturalproductivityisdirectlylinkedto thelivelihooof the people. Besides, the resources needed focomposting is locally available, less costly and easy tmaintainthestructuresrequiredforit:whereas,incaseo

other technologies resources are tobepurchased fromdistantmarketplacesatahigher cost. Theparticipatorimpactassessment,followup,monitoringandevaluationofruraltechnologiesshowedmanyoftheconstraintsstilfaced by the majority of the marginal farmers whilimplementinganddevelopingthe infrastructureetc.Thlimitations commonly experienced by users/farmerinclude (i). Inadequate methodologies, demonstrationscapacity building and training programme (iiInaccessibilityofresearchareas(iii).Lackoffacilitiesanresources(IV).Thereisalackofoverallcommunicatioand coordination between government programmeNGOs and farmers (v). Field testing and trial of ruratechnologiesarenotenoughatgrassrootlevelandthere

is a gap between institutions and farmers, financialimitationsetc.Theotherconstraintswhichisconsidereimportantthataffectadoptionofruraltechnologiesisthahills/mountainagriculturehasnotbeengivenanyprioritin the agriculture policies of Govt. at state and centralevel. However, a number of constraints are mainlrelatedtoexternalfactors,whichisespeciallyrelevanttaction,participatoryand developmentorientedresearchIt was reflected through the number of traininprogrammes organized, participants trained, exposurvisitof the individual and groupof people andthe leveand magnitude of adoption in the initial stages of thprogramme. Ithas stimulated financial institutionsofth

stategovernment(nationalbankforagricultureand ruradevelopment) toprovidesupport through itsvarious lindepartmentsfortrainingandextensionoftechnicaladvicto the user groups/rural people and has improvesubstantially during recent past. It is hoped that sucinterventionswillleadtoreducethegapbetweenR&Dinstitutions from farmers on the onehand and betweethepolicyplanners,extensionworkers,NGOs,GOsantheimplementers(localpeople)ontheotherhand.



829



j i

Fig.2.a&b:Onsitedemonstrationonprotectedcultivation& adoptionbyfarmersc:Demonstrationonwaterharvestingtanktechnology;d:Demonstration&trainingonvermicompost;e:

Trainingonhoneybeerearing;f:Peopleparticipationonlandrehabilitationprogramme;g:ValueadditionofSpondiapinnatta&itsproduct;h:Capacitybuildingofwomenfarmersonmushroomcultivation;i:Demonstration&trainingcentreatTriyuginarayan;j:DemonstrationandtrainingcenteratMaletha

i j



830



Conclusions and suggestions These simple rural technologies were introduced,redesigned and developed with the goal of bringingchangeoveraperiodoftime,leadingtosocio-economicimprovement, generation of employment opportunitiesand promotion of sustainable use of bioresources. In

order to ensure this, one must think about appropriateand effective mechanism with system approach indevelopmentandtransferofappropriateandeco-friendlytechnologiesasperuserneedsintheCentralHimalaya.Training programme need to be developed for specifictarget audience, inways that reach beyond awarenessrising.Thus,variousapproachessuchas inquirybased,practice based, community based, need based, criticalandcollaborativeapproachestobetestedandapplied.Inthis endeavour, institutional linkages and activeparticipation amongst voluntary agencies/science andtechnology based field research groups, research anddevelopmentinstitutions,financialagenciesandaboveall

peoplewhoaretheprimarystakeholdersbecomecrucialforimprovingthequalityoflifeinremoteandruralareastoachieveshortand longtermsustainability.Therefore,the technologies demonstrated/introduced, testedimplemented/adopted and described here can playcrucial role in building up local capacity to devisesolutions for tackling the identifiedproblems to improvethe livelihoods of the rural people by improving theirsurroundings environment. Besides, they will beempowered with skill and critical thinking which willfosters a sense of self- reliance, self-confidence andability to evaluate what is beneficial and which willimprovetheiraccesstoaffordable,environmentallysoundtechnologies and generate meaningful employment

basedonlocallyavailablenaturalresourcesoftheregion.Acknowledgments Theauthors thank theDirector G.B.Plant Institute ofHimalayan Environment and Development, KosiKatarmal, Almora for facilities and SSD, DST (TIME)Govt.ofIndia,NewDelhiandTSBF/GEF/CIAT/UNEPforfinancialsupport.References1. DhyaniD,MaikhuriRK,RaoKS,KumarL,PurohitVK, Sundriyal M and Saxena KG (2007) Basicnutritional attributes of Hippophae rhamnoides (Seabuckthorn) populations from Central Himalaya,India.Curr.Sci.92(8),1148-1152.

2. Joshi M, Rawat DS and Palni LMS (1998) Usefultechnologies for hill Farmers. FARM Biotech FieldDocument No. 2 Biotech Node, DBT, Govt of India,NewDelhi.pp:36-43.

3. Maikhuri RK, Rao KS, Kandari L S Joshi R andDhyaniD(2005)Doestheoutreachprogrammemakean impact? A case study of medicinal and aromaticplantcultivationinUttaranchal.Curr.Sci ,88(9),1480-1486.

4. Maikhuri RK, Rao KS and Saxena KG (1997)Rehabilitation of degraded community lands for

sustainabledevelopmentinHimalaya:AcasestudyiGarhwalHimalaya.Intl.J.Sustai.Devpt.&Worl.Ecol4,192-203.

5. MaikhuriRK,SemwalRL,SinghAandNautiyalMC(1994)Wild fruits asa contribution to the sustainablrural development: A case study from the Garhwa

Himalayan.Intl.J.Sustai.Devpt.&Worl.Ecol.1,56-68.6. MaikhuriRK,RaoKSandSaxenaKG(1996)Traditiocrop diversity for sustainable development of centraHimalayan agro-ecosystem. Intl. J. Sustai. Devpt. &Worl.Ecol. 3,8-31.

7. MaikhuriRK,RawatLS,Vikram,SNegiandPurohitVK (2007a) Eco-friendly appropriate technologies fosustainabledevelopmentofruralecosystemsinCentraHimalaya.G.B.PantInstituteofHimalayanEnvironmenandDevelopment.p:45.

8. Maikhuri RK,Vikram, SNegiRawatLS andPurohVK (2007b)Promotingvalueaddition in potentialwiledibles of Central Himalaya for sustainable livelihoo

and small scale enterprise development. G.B.PanInstituteofHimalayanEnvironment&Devpt.p:38.9. Palni LMS (1996) Simple and environment friendltechniquesforthewellbeingoftheHimalayananditinhabitants. In: Man, Culture and Society in thKumaun Himalaya. Agarwal CM (Ed.), Shree AlmorBookDepot,Almora.pp:270-290.

10. PalniLMSandRawatDS(2000)Simpletechnologieforcapacitybuildingandeconomicupliftmentofwomeinmountains. Paper presented in the Indian SciencCongress,3-7

thJanuary,atPune.

11. Purohit AN (1988) Science and Technology baseProgramme Environmentally Sound Development oSpecialAreas (Acasestudy for VIIIFiveYearPlan)

HighAltitudePlantPhysiologyResearchCentre,HNGarhwalUniversity,SrinagarGarhwal.p:88.

12. PurohitV.K.,BishtD.S.,JoshiMukeshandRawaD.S. (2006) Biobriquette:Abetteroptionforcontrollingforest fires. National Academy Science Letters , 29(5&6):159-161.

13. Rao KS, Maikhuri RK and Saxena KG (1999Participatory approach to rehabilitation of degradeforestlandsforsustainabledevelopment:AcasestudinahighaltitudevillageofIndianHimalaya.Inter.TreeCropJ .10,1-17.

14. Rawat DS, Farooquee NA and Joshi R (1996Towards Sustainable land-use in the hills of Centra

Himalya, India. Intnl. J.Sustai. Devpt.Worl.Ecol. 357-65.15. RawatDS,JoshiM,SharmaS,RikhariHCandPalnLMS(1998)Simpletechnologiesforruraldevelopmena case study from Haigad Watershed in KumauHimalaya. In: Research for Mountain DevelopmenSome Initiatives and Accomplishments. Anonymous(ed.)GyanodayaPrakashan,Nainital.pp:65-82.

16. VyasP,BishtMS,BhucharSandPalniLMS(1999 AnImprovedTechniqueforRaisingNurseryPlants.JSustei.Fores.8,3-59.

eco friendly technologies in himalaya-dr. r maikhuri

Documents