PTD for Sustainable Dryland Agriculture
in South India
Balancing our Way to
Scale
Y.D. Naidu and Edith van Walsum
Main
Actors and their Motivation for PTD
Sources
of Inspiration for PTD
Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Results
and Impact of PTD Processes
From
Joint Experimentation to Stakeholder Concerted Action
A
Synthesis: Institutionalising PTD = Walking on Four Legs
Issues
for Further Reflection and Discussion
Annex 1:
AME’s approach: 1994–2001
Annex 2:
Scaling-Up Strategies Developed in Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh
Abstract
This paper is about collaborative action between
institutions and individuals in South India, seeking to develop people-centred
approaches to promote sustainable dryland agriculture and sustainable
livelihoods of the rural poor. Participatory Technology Development (PTD) is an
important component of this approach. The South Indian context is characterised
by a marginal and degrading resource base, high population pressure and a high
density of institutions that play a role in promoting sustainable land use.
This creates a peculiar context for PTD as an approach: the institutional
climate is favourable, but small and marginal farmers have to survive on the
edge: their physical and economic margins for experimentation are narrow and
decreasing.
AME is an independent support organisation, which has
been a prime mover of sustainable and ecologically sound agriculture in South
India since the mid 1980s. AME developed an approach to concerted stakeholder
action, with PTD as ‘entry strategy’. The initial focus is on field-level
guidance to farmers and NGO field staff. We then start working ‘upwards’ by
feeding the lessons learnt in PTD processes into the formal information systems
of research institutions and the Ministry of Agriculture. We work
‘sidewards’ by facilitating the
formation of stakeholder platforms of farmers, NGOs, researchers and
Departments of Agriculture; and ‘forwards and backwards’ by involving banking
institutions, input suppliers, and processing and storage experts in these
platforms.
A PTD process begins with the identification of
entry-point problems, crops and institutions. We start experiments with a few
groups, on single crops. Over a period of 3–4 years, the approach broadens and
deepens, from single crops to integrated farming systems, and from single
groups to farmers’ federations. Village-level institutions, mainly Farmers Help
Groups, form the main launching pad for PTD experimentation and for scaling up
PTD-proven technologies.
Women increasingly manage agriculture in dryland
areas. In 1996 about 30% of farmers involved in PTD processes were women, in
2000 65% were women. But is that the same as gender mainstreaming? No. Women still face important
constraints when it comes to control over resources and institutional gender
bias. On the other hand, once women are involved in PTD processes, their
Self-Help Groups and Federations become very powerful instruments for scaling
up sustainable and women-friendly technologies.
Comprehensive training support has been given to the
organisations implementing PTD with farmers. In principle, AME engages in
medium- to long-term associations with organisations, with a time perspective
of at least three years. Support is specific to each organisation, depending on
background and experience. AME works primarily with NGOs that are active
members of larger networks, because this enhances the potential for scaling up.
Training addresses social, technical, methodological and process aspects. NGOs
are often more concerned with social than with technical issues. Therefore,
importance is given to technical knowledge building in the PTD training
curriculum.
Results and impact of PTD processes are
multi-dimensional. Impact means spread of technologies and approaches, within
one farm from one crop to another, from entry point to system level, then from
farmer to farmer, from village to village, within and between organisations,
and so on. In 1997 we started experimentation involving 270 farmers in two
districts, in collaboration with 12 NGOs. By 2001 we were involved in PTD
processes with 1900 farmers in 25 districts, with an estimated outreach to
another 10,300 extension farmers who are exposed to the technologies tested
through PTD and are encouraged to also try them. Eight NGO networks are
involved, with in total about 180 member NGOs. An impact study gave insights
into the way in which PTD-tested innovations spread. It was found that the
spread was quicker when the crop was more profitable, the technology was
simple, and crop-specific risks were low. Social cohesiveness of the group and
the village also contributes positively to the extent of spread.
AME’s approach to institutionalisation walks on four
legs:
- Building an integrated area approach with the
focus on strengthening the village-level institutions and their
federations, ongoing capacity building of NGO networks, and the strategic
functioning of the District-Level Working Committees, which consist of a
cross-section of important stakeholders;
- Establishing
and consolidating Crop-based Working
Groups which operate on the regional and, to some extent, the national
level;
- Strengthening
the links with the state and
national policy levels, through AME’s Steering Committee and also
through policy advocacy;
- Institutionalising AME itself.
We remain with a few questions. What are we scaling up? – the PTD process or the technologies that
have been tested and proven in a PTD process? How far can PTD be scaled up
without losing its essential characteristics? It would be realistic to aim at
scaling up a more standardised, structured approach, which can be linked to PTD processes, but which builds on rather than institutionalises
PTD itself. How far should we go in
scaling up? When we go into the mode of stakeholder concerted action,
lobbying and policy advocacy, we risk losing touch with field-level realities –
and exactly being connected with them has been our strength. We need to evolve
models of institutionalisation that can be replicated and taken further to scale
by others. Can PTD become part of an
alternative route to globalisation? The dryland farmers in South India are
facing crashing farm-gate prices for almost every crop. Are there new niches
for dryland farmers? These challenges we have begun to confront by looking,
together with the farmers, for alternative cropping and marketing systems.
Acknowledgements
We thank the farmers involved in our programmes for
sharing their common sense, their wisdom and their sharp observations, and for
making constant reality checks. We thank NGOs for their partnership and
commitment and for their zeal to scale up – driving the message home to us that
it is a moral obligation. We thank our researcher friends for their willingness
to share, for being patient and in a constant learning mode, and all those
others with whom we have been collaborating in one way or the other. Thanks go
also to our own colleagues in AME who, all in their own way, have been involved
in PTD implementation. We found our drivers to be keen observers, seeing often
much faster than we which farmer is a serious PTD farmer and who is not.
In AME, there are those who work in the field and
those who write. Through working on papers like this one, we learn to work
together and to respect and appreciate each other. This paper was prepared by a
two-person team – one of us with a deep involvement in and understanding of
institutional processes in the field, the other a ‘participant observer’ with a
policy focus. We thank IIRR and ETC Ecoculture for giving us this challenging
opportunity to sit down together and write – and for the patience with which
they have been waiting for this paper!
Introduction
This paper is
about collaborative action between institutions and individuals. It is about
the development of people-centred approaches to promote sustainable dryland
agriculture and sustainable livelihoods of the rural poor. We discuss and
review joint programmes of AME, a support organisation, and partner
organisations (NGOs, NGO networks, Departments of Agriculture, research
institutions) implemented in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka in South India. We describe the role that PTD and complementary
approaches have played in these programmes and the extent to which PTD
processes and/or their outcomes have been scaled up and institutionalised over
the past five years (1996-2001). During this period, concerted efforts were
made to develop and strengthen PTD as an integral part of our approach. AME,
however, has been a support programme in South India since 1986 and has been
one of the pioneers in the field of promoting low-external-input and
sustainable agriculture (LEISA). This history has helped AME to acquire the
leverage required to be an effective intermediary organisation in this field.
We will address
the process approach followed in training, field-level experimentation and
stakeholder concerted action. We raise a number of strategic issues which we have
come across in our work, but which – in our view – have a larger significance.
In the final section, we synthesise our learning points regarding key
components of institutionalisation.
This is an overview paper. It aims to give an overall
picture of AME’s approach. As we are working in 25 districts in three states,
within the rather vast mandate area of the Deccan Plateau, it is impossible to
give all details. We could have chosen to present one case (which would have
made life easier for us and perhaps for the reader), but we refrained from that
temptation. As we are discussing scaling up and institutionalisation processes,
we felt we should make an effort to show the whole, with glimpses (presented in
boxes) into specific areas and processes. The ‘price’ we pay for presenting a
broad overview is that we have to leave out many interesting details.
The
Context
Going to Scale in the Indian
Context
AME: An Independent Support and
Linkage Organisation
This
Fissured Land
India occupies
2% of the earth’s surface but must feed 18% of the world’s human population.
Indians are confined to a land suffering
from many kinds of resource depletion. Existing levels of disruption of energy
and material cycles, which ultimately must be closed, cannot be sustained
indefinitely. They are leading to a continuous depression of the productive
potential of cultivated and non-cultivated land. The situation has been
[temporarily] saved from serious disaster by the Green Revolution. However this
has been restricted to only 20% of the land under cultivation. Serious
disparities remain. There has been a significant expansion in the niche space
for intensive agriculture as well as for resource processing and transport,
information processing and resource usurpation. However this has been seriously
offset by continuing contraction of niche space for subsistence [dryland]
agriculture and for those depending on foraging for resources. These
difficulties have been compounded by an over-all growth in numbers of people.
The consequence has been a scrambling for resources and intense conflict, in the
countryside and in the cities where people who have been driven out from
elsewhere are flocking. [...] No longer functional entities in the present
scenario of shrinking niche space, castes and communities are set up against
each-other, with frighteningly high levels of communal and caste violence being
the result. In India the ongoing struggle between the peasant and industrial
modes of resource use has left in its wake a fissured land, ecologically and
socially fragmented beyond belief and, to some observers, beyond repair. Where do we go from here?[1] (Gadgil & Guha 1993)
AME’s area of
operation – the Deccan Plateau – is a chronically drought-prone region where
overexploitation of the natural resource base is pervasive. The Deccan Plateau lies
in the rain-shadow of the Western Ghats in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu States. Annual rainfall ranges from 500 to 900 mm.
Rainfed farming is practised in 81% of this region, which was largely bypassed
by the Green Revolution. New technologies have helped better-endowed pockets
but this is offset by declining productivity in vast marginal areas (Jodha
1996). The area has a population of about 200 million people, and the
livelihoods of more than half of them are (still) partly or totally dependent
on dryland farming.
Figure 1: Map
of Deccan Plateau with AME’s areas of operation
During the past
50 years, there has been a steady decrease in soil fertility in this region,
water tables have fallen rapidly especially during the past 20 years and
draught power has almost disappeared. There are increasing energy shortages,
increasing stretches of fallow land and increased mechanisation, which has
reduced opportunities for agricultural wage labour. An under-acknowledged but
pervasive phenomenon is the increasing number of marginalised female-managed
farm households as a consequence of (predominantly) male migration. Last but
not least, traditional institutions, including the indigenous knowledge that
forms part of them, are eroding quickly. Most recently, farmers in several
areas are facing serious problems with crashing prices of agricultural
products. This is partly attributable to the opening up of markets as a result
of globalisation policies.
Going to Scale in the Indian Context
First, we bring
a few observations on the meaning of
scaling up in the Indian context. The scale itself should be understood:
the sheer size of the Indian subcontinent, the magnitude of its population, the
pressing environmental issues, the complex institutional scenario with a
Federal Government with layers and layers of bureaucracy and a comprehensive
agricultural research set-up with over 200 agricultural research institutions
and some 60 agricultural universities. The NGO sector is quite small compared
to the government sector. Yet there are an estimated 60,000 NGOs in India and
together they form a complex, colourful and diverse whole. And then the
farmers: who are the Indian farmers? There are more than half a billion
small-scale and marginal farmers and about a quarter of them are on the Deccan
Plateau. They live under very diverse conditions, speak many different
languages, raise different crops and animals, and yet they are all subjected to
the same government policies, extension messages and marketing regimes.
Obviously, their needs are diverse and call for open-minded and flexible
support systems that, unfortunately, do not exist at present.
However, there
are encouraging developments that need to be acknowledged – within the
Government, in research institutions and in civil society. These give hope that
there is scope for effective people- and ecology-oriented approaches to
agricultural development. There is also a huge potential for scaling up
innovative approaches. Participatory and people-centred approaches have been
well established in India over the past 10–15 years. PRA has been
institutionalised as a participatory planning tool. People’s organisations
(mostly initiated by NGOs), notably women’s Self-Help Groups (SHGs), have
mushroomed. SHGs and other village-level institutions have started organising
themselves into large federations.
Within this
context, the challenge for AME and its partners has been to get PTD rooted and
institutionalised. The institutional environment and the available human
resource potential, especially in the form of village-level institutions, are
conducive. On the other hand, the overall ecological context is all but rosy.
The economic context is one of globalisation taking shape, with prices for
agricultural products going down, farmers getting more and more indebted and
reports of farmers suicides ‘not being able to bear the debt burden’ in the
newspapers every day. Within this larger geopolitical scenario, the niche
spaces for the rural poor are ever decreasing.
Are the emerging opportunities for
alternative and people-centred approaches giving enough space for an
alternative growth path, a viable alternative to a globalisation that is
totally dictated by market forces? And are we, the ‘change agents’, ready to
face the challenges, to use the space that is emerging?
AME: An
Independent Support and Linkage Organisation
This paper is
written from the perspective of AME, an organisation that was one of the prime
movers in South India promoting sustainable and ecologically sound agriculture.
It started in 1986 as a training programme and gradually broadened its
approach, becoming a full-fledged resource organisation that plays an
increasingly important role in initiating and advancing PTD and in forging
collaboration between stakeholders in sustainable agriculture.
AME has the long-term objective of promoting
sustainable land use through concerted stakeholder action. AME’s practical aims are to assist NGOs in
strengthening their capacities to implement sustainable agriculture programmes
and to facilitate collaborative action between NGOs, research institutions and
the Government of India’s Departments of Agriculture (DoA). AME’s approach
leans on a mix of participatory methodologies such as PTD, Participatory Rural
Appraisal (PRA), Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
and Rapid Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS).[2]
AME neither
implements PTD processes on its own, nor is it in the position to instruct
others to do PTD. We are in between. AME
does not form part of any other larger institution but occupies its own unique
niche. We work ‘downwards’ by giving guidance and field-level facilitation to
farmers and NGO field staff. We work ‘upwards’ by feeding the lessons learnt in
PTD processes into the formal information systems of research institutions and
the Ministry of Agriculture. We work ‘sidewards’ by facilitating exchange
between farmers, NGOs, researchers and DoAs in the three regions where we
operate. We work ‘forwards’ and ‘backwards’ by involving banking institutions,
input suppliers, and processing and storage experts in the strategic
deliberations in the context of the PTD processes.
Figure
2: AME as a linkage agent
Since 1996, AME
has been given the explicit mandate by its donor, the Netherlands Government,
to be a catalysing agency, with the aim to
enhance the linkages between the biomass actors on the Deccan Plateau of South
India. It was made a bilateral project in 1997 and has since been formally
implemented under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, which endorsed
the mandate given to AME. In practice, it has been operating in a way very
different from most bilateral projects, in the sense that it has acquired many
characteristics of an independent NGO.
After having
been given the mandate to be a linkage institution, a key question for AME has
been: how do we give practical meaning to it? We may be formally mandated, but
do our partner institutions and other stakeholders acknowledge this role? In
this paper, we discuss what went into the process of ‘grounding’ AME as a
linkage institution in the Indian institutional landscape and how this
grounding has been essential for the very institutionalisation of our approach.
The outcome of five years of intensive collaboration has been that AME has been
entrusted by stakeholders in sustainable agriculture with the mandate of a
linkage institution.
A natural development, in institutional terms, has been that AME is now
shedding off its project status and becoming formally an Indian organisation.
We see this as an essential step in the process of institutionalising PTD.
Main Actors and their Motivation for PTD
International
Research Centres
National
and Regional Research Institutions
Local
Actors: Small-Scale and Marginal Farmers and their Institutions
In this section,
we explore the institutional landscape within which PTD as an approach has
taken shape, looking at NGOs, research institutions and DoAs. Other categories
of actors, such as the banks and input suppliers are – for reasons of space –
discussed only briefly here, but we wish to acknowledge their actual and
potential role. We end this section with a most crucial and challenging part of
the institutional landscape: the village-level institutions. We also discuss
some agro-ecological and socio-economic characteristics of the farming
‘community’, which will explain that it is indeed impossible to talk about a
single community. This has important implications for our approach to PTD.
NGOs
South India has
a high density of NGOs. The number of registered NGOs in the Deccan Plateau
region is estimated at 10,000. During the past ten years, many NGOs that were
earlier involved in social action and/or community development have taken up
the challenge of land-based programmes. They saw this as a logical next step in
supporting the rural poor in their struggle for survival and sustenance. Some
of them saw also opportunities here because the Government made large sums
available for NGOs to take up watershed programmes. So far, in most cases, the
focus has been on people’s mobilisation and organisation for participatory
watershed management and on the formation of SHGs (most of them women’s
groups), which are primarily concerned with savings and credit management. A
smaller number of NGOs became interested in taking these processes a step
further and started using the existing social infrastructure in the
communities, water-users associations and women’s SHGs, as a basis for
agriculture-related initiatives.
It was here
that AME as a support organisation came in. NGOs had realised the need to
assist farmers in addressing their problems in agriculture, but were looking
for professional support, as the majority of them lacked agricultural
expertise. Most were familiar with PRA as a tool, but that in itself was not a
sufficient methodological basis to develop a participatory approach to
developing dryland agriculture.
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
Research Institutions
Policymakers
and the prevailing system of research and development of agricultural
technologies have, so far, paid far less attention to dryland agriculture than
to irrigated agriculture in high-potential areas. Moreover, approaches followed
often do not address the problems in an adequate manner.
R and D
approaches, methods and designs have largely copied the experience of research
strategies in well-watered or irrigated areas. This is reflected through focus
on limited crops and their selected attributes (e.g. grain yield) rather than
emphasising integrated mixed farming systems. Consequently, Rain-fed Farming
Research could neither properly identify and fully harness the niche of these
areas, nor could it understand and incorporate the rationale of traditional
farming systems in these generally fragile, diverse, high-risk,
low-productivity environments (Jodha 1996).
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
International
Research Centres
Research institutions
are gradually becoming more open to participatory approaches to technology
development in dryland agriculture. The International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), one of the centres of the CGIAR
(Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), has made a shift
since the early 1990s. It evolved collaboration with NGOs, began to accept PRA
as a valid participatory research methodology and included participatory
elements in its breeding programmes. A push factor has been the fact that, in
recent years, research funding has declined. Innovative researchers entered
into cost-effective collaborative arrangements with NGOs, to which they
outsourced part of their research work. A concrete example is the case of ICRISAT’s
collaboration with Myrada (a large NGO in South India) and AME in the
development of a leaf-wetness counter, a tool for forecasting outbreak of a
fungal disease that affects groundnut.[3]
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
National and Regional Research
Institutions
The national
and regional research institutions picked up this trend somewhat later. Though
exposure to the new approaches evolved by trend-setting institutions like
ICRISAT, they realised that participatory research has a larger significance.
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
Passionate Researchers
In the process
of sensitising the institutions, the role
of individual enlightened researchers cannot be underestimated. During the
past years, AME has built up very encouraging experience with individual
researchers who became involved, during their weekends, in PTD processes with
AME, NGOs and farmer groups. We have seen these researchers going through
radical shifts in their thinking about agriculture. They started publishing
their experiences in the LEISA Newsletter
of the Netherlands-based Centre for Information on Low-External Input and
Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), but also in local daily newspapers and
scientific journals. What started for them as a hobby became a passion. In some
cases, this lead to formal recognition of their PTD work by their institution.
But there was also the case of the researcher who shared the learning from a
PTD process with the local press and received a letter from his Head of
Department who threatened him with disciplinary action if he would continue to
deviate from his formal research mandate.
The latest
development in this process of building researchers’ awareness and empowering
them is the formation of an ‘AME consultants group’. Individual consultants
realised the need for a professional informal forum for sharing their
experiences. This group is yet in its formative stage; it consists of all
twenty-odd consultants working with AME. Most but not all of them are
researchers. There is also an ex-pesticides dealer, a farmer, a head of a
women’s NGO, two retired government officials and a commercial tax officer!
They have agreed to meet on a monthly basis to discuss technical, social and
strategic issues in relation to their passion – promoting sustainable
agriculture.
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
Government Departments
During recent
years, two of the Government of India (GoI) Ministries – Agriculture and Rural
Development – have started giving more importance to dryland areas. Whereas the
focus in earlier years was on technical land-restoration interventions, often
through food-for-work programmes, the approach has become more comprehensive
and people-oriented. The magnitude of environmental degradation is becoming
clear, and it is also realised that dryland regions do have an inherent
productive potential. Most remarkable is the increased attention by the GoI to
watershed management. Innovative policy guidelines were prepared which spelled
out an active role for NGOs and other potential actors. PRA became a widely
accepted tool for initiating participatory watershed management programmes.
Box 1: The Government’s Perspective Plan
on Watershed Management
In its 4th
Five-Year Plan, the GoI presented a 25-year Perspective Plan on Watershed Management.
The total area to be covered is 65 million hectares and the overall investment
will be equivalent to about 19 billion Euros. A common approach has been
designed, key features of which are participatory approach, implementation
through village-level institutions and an envisaged high extent of linkages
with panchayats (local councils),
credit institutions, research institutions, NGOs and the private sector. GoI
recognises that extensive training and capacity building of various
stakeholders would be needed but that, as of now, the capacity to guide such
processes is inadequate. According to Rita Sharma, Joint Director of
Agriculture (and Chair of AME’s Steering Committee): “Capacity building of all
actors in the drama must move simultaneously if the watershed development is to
be effectively conducted. Indeed, watershed development in rain-fed areas must
become a true people’s movement for sustainable food production and livelihood
support to rural community” (pers. comm. 2001).
Within this
context, enormous opportunities are emerging for organisations like AME to
promote sustainable dryland farming through a participatory approach.
Development of suitable technologies which redress the degraded ecosystem and
which are economically feasible for small-scale and marginal dryland farmers
will, in most situations, be a gradual process of small steps, as the margins
are narrow. Not only the technologies must be developed but also the necessary
forward and backward linkages, such as supply systems for eco-friendly inputs,
credit facilities for these, market niches and adequate forms of social
organisation to enable farmers to use the technologies effectively. PTD can
play a catalytic role. Being participatory, location-specific and oriented to
systems rather than crops, it is an approach that addresses the gap left by
formal research. Moreover, it is concerned not only with developing
technologies but also with strengthening the capacities of people – men and
women farmers – to analyse ongoing processes and develop useful innovations.
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
Banks
Over the past
ten years, the rural banking system has opened up to collective initiatives of small-scale
and marginal farmers, mainly through their positive experience with women’s
SHGs, which have proven to be very creditworthy. Individual bank managers, who
noticed that the LEISA package of practices developed through PTD processes by
farmer groups was economically viable, started adjusting their lending
policies. These had earlier been completely based on standard packages with
high dependence on chemical inputs and aimed at maximising yield rather than
net profit.
These are,
however, individual cases rather than being an institutionalised response,
which is yet to come but it could be facilitated in several ways. AME has been
using the following strategies of sensitising the rural banks: all our District
Working Committees have a representative of NABARD (National Bank for
Agriculture and Rural Development); we invite bank representatives to field
days where farmers show the results of PTD processes; and occasionally AME is
invited to give training to bank managers on sustainable agriculture.
Training of bank managers should be taken up
pro-actively, if we are serious about bringing about a change in the mind-sets
of banking institutions.
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
Input Suppliers
Commercial
suppliers of eco-friendly inputs such as bio-fertilisers see a natural ally in
AME. From its side, AME encourages farmers to try out inputs produced by
different suppliers and assess for themselves what works best. In some cases,
NGOs have started taking up production of biological inputs themselves, with
the aim to make them more accessible to farmers and to see whether this could
earn income for their own organisation or for farmer groups. A
‘second-generation’ type of PTD experiments has emerged in which NGO staff
members, together with enterprising farmers, have started experimenting with
the production of bio-control agents and with alternative small-scale
production processes of bio-fertilisers (in thermos flasks). These experiments
have been initiated mainly by interested NGO staff and AME consultants but, in
due course, they would have to be taken up by enterprising farmers in the rural
communities.
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
Local Actors: Small-Scale and
Marginal Farmers and their Institutions
Village-level
institutions
The
institutionalisation of any development intervention starts with some form of community
organisation. However, small-scale and marginal farmers are not a coherent
interest group that easily organises itself (unlike, for instance, fishing
communities, which have organised themselves as a sector to defend their
interests at high political levels). There are, of course, indigenous
institutions such as traditional tank-management committees, or the remnants of
these, and the decentralised political system with village-level panchayats. Whereas the former
institutions are sometimes but not always suitable vehicles for taking up new
initiatives to develop agriculture, the latter are often highly politicised.
A ‘new’ form of
community organisation has taken shape during the past 15 years, mainly through
the initiatives of NGOs. Village-level Self Help Groups were formed, first
consisting primarily of men, but gradually the majority of SHGs became all
female. The main reasons for this feminisation of SHGs are:
1.
the fact that women, compared to men, were more
serious about savings and credit, which was often the entry-point activity for
these groups; and
2.
in the dryland context, women play an increasingly
central role as farm and household managers, because there is a significant
migration, especially of men.
In addition to
SHGs, other forms of village-level institutions were established, such as
watershed management committees and other groups of natural resource users.
These institutions, in contrast to the SHGs, still tend to be male-dominated. A
development of the past five years is the formation of SHG Federations: the
SHGs organise themselves into larger structures consisting of often several
thousand women or men farmers. Working with and through NGOs, AME has always
worked with the existing village-level institutions. As we shall see later,
these groups are important entry points for PTD in the community and sometimes
have become effective mechanisms for scaling up.
Differences between farmers
The farming
community cannot be easily defined without making some gross generalisations.
There are important differences between and within regions. Even within
villages, there are the usual differences between caste groups and
socio-economic categories, which partly overlap with differences in
agro-ecological characteristics of farms. Last but not least, there are
important differences between male and female members of one family, when we
compare the relative access to and control over (natural) resources. There are
also important differences between male and female mobility, which to some
extent explain the trend of feminisation of dryland agriculture. All these
differences play a role in the process of forming, developing and sustaining
village-level institutions.
Box 2: Farm households in different
parts of a watershed
In the upper reaches of the watershed, soil has eroded away and the
water-holding capacity of the remaining soil has decreased because both organic
matter and the better part of the topsoil have gradually disappeared. Drought
stress is experienced with increasing severity and frequency, leading to very
low yields that not even enough to cover the cost of seeds planted. One often
finds lower-caste people or Dalits[4]
in these areas. There is a pronounced tendency of migration.
In the lower reaches, farmers rely on wage labour for agriculture, which
is becoming a costly proposition because opportunities for rural industrial
employment are on the rise and affect the wages demanded by agricultural labourers.
Farmers' profits decline because farm-gate prices of agricultural products do
not rise at the same rate as labour costs. Profits become thinner as chemical
pest control requires more money than ever before. Furthermore, newer and more
expensive chemicals have to be used since pests display increased resistance to
the ones already in use. Farmers in this area traditionally belong to the
landed castes. In these families, women’s role in agriculture is mostly limited
to supervising labourers. A relatively recent tendency among this category is
to move to urban areas in search of better education etc for the children and
to lease out the land. The farmers in the
transition area or middle reaches
have more land of better quality than the farmers in the higher parts of the
watersheds and rely less on external labour than the farmers in the valley
bottom. Hence they have better yields and lower production costs, and can make
profits. In this area are small-scale farming families with everyone involved in
the farm work.
AME works, as a
strategy, with all categories of farmers. All of them are stakeholders in the
context of the watershed where their farm is situated. Interventions made at
one level have consequences somewhere else, physically and/or socially.
However, the farmers in the middle reaches are the ones with more potential and
interest to take up experiments. They concentrate more on farming and most of
them own enough land (at least 2-3 acres) to allow for some experimentation.
Therefore, from
AME’s strategic point of view, this is an important category of farmers. On the
other hand, the partner NGOs do not always work with these farmers, e.g. in the
case of organisations who have made the ideological choice of working only with
Dalits. In many situations, the most
marginal land in the upper reaches of the watershed is given to Dalits.
How do we balance between considerations such
as potential to take up experiments and making farms sustainable, and social
considerations – working with the most marginalised – which are the primary
driving forces for many NGOs?
Top Main Actors and their Motivation
for PTD
Sources of Inspiration for PTD
PTD:
A Central Pillar in AME’s Approach
Problem Identification and Institutional Scanning
Several actors
and factors triggered the initial interest in taking up experiments on a small
scale, and then later there were (f)actors that created a conducive climate for
taking these further. We look first at the initial “pieces of coal which lit
the fire”.
Connected Farmers
Farmers’
interest in PTD must be understood in the context of degrading resources,
decreased risk-taking capacity, declining yields and neglect on the part of several
institutions supposed to cater to the needs of these farmers. Many small-scale
and marginal dryland farmers feel they have few options left in both
socio-economic and agricultural terms. Their dependency on moneylenders is
high, not just for money, also for agricultural advice and inputs although less
so in the areas where SHGs have come in a big way. They all depend partly or
totally on agriculture for their livelihoods and are interdependent in many
respects. They are largely or totally dependent on unpredictable rainfall, face
a declining resource base for which there is a stiff competition (notably for
water) and have limited capacity to take risks. Depending on their resource
base (all have little, but some have more than others), family (labour)
situation and ultimately on their own
mind-set, farmers have an interest or have lost interest in finding
solutions for the difficult situation they are in. It is this interest, and a deeper motivation for farming that lies
behind it, that forms the basis for PTD experimentation processes.
“Land is the farmers’ research station, it is
giving food, it is their place of worship. Land is the Mother. We depend on the
land and therefore must respect her. This respect is the basis for meaningful experiments.
If there is respect, farmers learn many things. If the respect is not there,
but only the desire to see immediate results, there won’t be any learning.“ -
An AME team member –
Not all farmers
have this motivation. Because of the complex pressures on them and pulls away
from agriculture, many small-scale and marginal farmers have lost their
motivation to innovate and improve agriculture. Nevertheless, in each PTD
process, we have been able to find some farmers who do have this ‘fire’ in
them. It is perhaps one farmer out on ten or twenty who has this deeper
motivation and can serve as a source of inspiration to many others. We have
seen that a deep respect for and connectedness with nature is a key condition
for being a motivated PTD farmer. That is why we call them ”connected farmers”. Through PTD processes, this respect can – to
some extent – be re-gained. However, the issue remains that this can only be
done around an existing core of inspiration, which can be one or two farmers.
In a PTD process, it is extremely important
to create a learning environment in which farmers are encouraged to re-connect
with nature. This can be done by giving much importance to observing
agro-ecosystems and natural processes. This requires facilitators who are
sensitive, knowledgeable and connected themselves!
When AME and
its partner NGOs initiated discussions with farmers about their problems in
agriculture and possible solutions, they quickly became interested: “Finally
somebody who shows an interest, who comes to visit our farms!" Women
farmers were even more excited than their male colleagues because of higher
levels of deprivation – less access to external knowledge and resources than
men. At the same time, they were experts in their own right when it comes to
local knowledge, but they also realised that this did not provide them with a
real way out of the situation they were trapped in. The village-level
institutions, which were taken as entry points for the initial discussions on
PTD, acted as catalysts in this motivation process. As we were working with
already existing groups, it was the social interaction in the group that
ensured that once one or two men or women were interested in taking up
experiments, others also joined.
It is important to identify a critical mass
of farmers who have not lost interest in farming and who belong to an existing
village-level institution. In such an initial group, there should be one or two
farmers who are the driving forces behind the joint innovation process.
From the
beginning, it was clear that there was little scope for “open-ended”
experimentation. Farmers were not prepared to lose precious time (which has a
definite shadow price: going to work as a labourer, they have a comparatively
secure daily wage ranging from 30 to 100 rupees or ca. 0.70 to 2.30 Euros). On
the other hand, just about everyone who has not yet given up farming is
interested in trying out alternatives, hoping to get something better than the
meagre yields they were used to.
What critical support should be given to
farmers who have a very low capacity to take risks and are deprived of credit
facilities and government subsidies, to enable them to go into experimentation?
Top Sources of
Inspiration for PTD
AME and NGOs Coming Together
PTD: A Central Pillar in AME’s
Approach
Problem
Identification and Institutional Scanning
In its early
years, AME had mainly concentrated on training NGOs and some articulate farmers
in the principles of ecological agriculture. This training had a significant
impact in terms of increased eco-awareness within the NGO sector and some
enlightened farmers and researchers. It actively contributed to an emerging
sustainable agriculture movement. However, after eight years of working on
these issues, it became clear that a greater respect for nature does not
automatically lead to practical alternatives. Ecological awareness has to be
complemented with a practical approach to encourage farmers to try out
eco-friendly alternatives in a participatory and systematic way.
Around the
mid-1990s, there were several NGOs ready to take up PTD. Their sources of
inspiration varied. Some were clearly seeking practical approaches to
developing eco-friendly alternatives and were primarily driven by environmental
motives. Others had much more a social activist background; after years of
supporting the marginalised in their struggle for land, the issue became: how
to make this marginal land productive?
Top Sources of
Inspiration for PTD AME and NGOs Coming Together
Evolving an Approach
In 1994 AME
started a collaborative pilot project in two villages in partnership with one
NGO. We evolved an approach, learned from it and adjusted it. Based on two
years of learning, we started comprehensive area programmes in three districts
in 1996. In each of these areas, PTD was taken up as an approach from the
beginning. We chose to work through fairly simple entry-point activities and
crops, with a limited number of farmers and organisations. We opted to work
with organisations having different ideologies, thereby aiming to break
barriers and encourage cross-institutional learning. The intention was to work
primarily on technologies that were – weather permitting – almost sure to give
the farmers an increase in their net profits and, if possible, their yields. In
this way, they would gain confidence to try more. Once positive results were
booked with these farmers, we built further on these results. From a fairly
early stage, we began linking up the PTD processes to research institutions and
the DoA. After about three years, we saw that NGOs and farmers had gained
sufficient confidence to take PTD processes further. They started doing PTD
work in other villages, and NGO networks took the activities to other
districts. Technologies began to spread autonomously.
Box 3:
Qualitative and quantitative scaling up: two interconnected processes
Qualitative scaling up: Involving
researchers and policymakers in discussions about PTD, mainly through fora such
as the Groundnut Working Group, the AME Steering Committee and District Working
Committees.
Quantitative
scaling up: Ensuring that larger numbers of farmers become involved,
mainly through conducting training of trainers (ToT) for NGO networks.
These processes together laid the basis for a further autonomous spread of
technologies.
Figure 3
visualises the process dimension of AME’s approach. Annex 1 gives a schematic overview
of the different stages in the development of the approach, from PTD with
single entry-point crops to comprehensive stakeholder concerted action. It is
difficult to present schematically what is basically a process approach, as
there are many iterative elements and processes within processes, but the table
shows how the approach evolved over time.
Figure 3: AME’s
process approach – Krishi Expo
Top Sources of
Inspiration for PTD AME and NGOs Coming Together
PTD: A Central Pillar in AME’s Approach
AME’s approach
goes ‘beyond PTD’, but PTD is a critical pillar, the catalytic activity in a
change process that brings actors together. We briefly explain how we begin our
work in an area with a problem assessment and institutional scanning. We then
discuss training: in-house training of our own team, field level training as an
input into the PTD process, and strategic training and ToTs. Then we explain
how PTD processes are implemented and discuss the gradually shifting roles in
these processes. We end this section with some remarks about monitoring and
documentation.
All these activities
are very much interconnected and, to some extent, cyclical: teams have to be
trained to do a good problem assessment; the problem assessment gives initial
ideas about training requirements; training again is an input into field
experiments, which provide inputs for ToT. Annex 1 and the figures on AME’s
process approach in this and the previous section visualise these interlocking
processes of training, field-level experimentation and concerted stakeholder
action.
Top Sources of
Inspiration for PTD AME and NGOs Coming Together
Problem Identification and
Institutional Scanning
Initial
assessment of problems in agriculture and their connection with other
livelihood issues is done through a combination of PRA and RAAKS methods. PRA
lends itself well to problem assessment at the village level. An initial
scanning of key actors in relation to these problems is done with the help of
RAAKS, which aims at mapping agricultural knowledge systems and their
interconnections, the key institutional actors and their perceptions of
problems in agriculture. Important in the mapping process is to find out what
binds and what separates the actors, and then try to identify what could be a
strategy to overcome these blocks in communication and collaboration. The
insights gained through RAAKS exercises thus give an initial direction for a
strategy for collaborative action.
Box 4: With the help of PRA and RAAKS
methods we identify:
Which
agricultural problems are we going to address?
Who are the
key actors in relation to these problems?
What are
their perceptions of the problems and their possible solutions?
Which actors should
be brought on board in a concerted stakeholder process, and when?
How can we
bring them on board?
What are
possible areas for collaboration?
Would PTD be
one of these; if so, who should be involved and how?
Figure 4: From PTD to stakeholder
concerted action – training and learning cycles
Top Sources of
Inspiration for PTD AME and NGOs Coming Together
Training
Training for NGOs and Farmers:
Some Important Characteristics
Training is a
very essential part of our work. AME’s training approach has various
components. We distinguish a first and a second phase in the comprehensive
training process of NGOs – each covering a period of about three years. This
sounds like a time-consuming process – it is! But it should be borne in mind
that this is a training trajectory beyond PTD: the NGOs engaging in this
process with AME are trained to handle PTD processes independently. Beyond
that, we engage in strategic discussions on scaling up, resource mobilisation
for scaling up and other issues that are part of the scaling-up process. Our
training journey starts, however, with comprehensive training for our own team.
Training of the AME Team
Our PTD work
started with intensive internal training for our own team. There were no ready-made
PTD specialists on the Indian job market, so they had to be trained on the job.
Basically, this has been a process of joint learning by all, rather than PTD
experts training others to become experts. PTD experiences and resource
materials developed elsewhere served as a source of inspiration but, for the
practical design and implementation of PTD processes, we had to rely on our own
creativity and experience.
In an ongoing
in-house/on-field training programme, we trained ourselves (helped by external
resource persons and resource materials) in participatory training approaches,
PTD, LEISA, IPM, Integrated Nutrient Management, Gender and Sustainable
Agriculture, Social Organisation, RAAKS and institutional change. Parallel to
this, a team building and organisational development process was initiated. The
underlying idea was that all of us had some relevant knowledge and experience
which, if put together, would help us in developing an approach to PTD that
would be suitable for the South Indian context.
Training for NGOs and Farmers: Some
Important Characteristics
In principle,
AME engages in medium- to long-term associations with organisations, with a
time perspective of at least three years. Therefore, a careful selection of
organisations is important[5].
After the selection has been made, AME and the partner NGO enter into a
contract where both partners are free to terminate the relationship if the
other does not stick to its commitments.
Box 5:
Commitments between NGOs and AME
AME commits
itself to a comprehensive training/support role, whereby the focus can be on
technical, social and/or overall process – depending on the needs of the organisation.
Smaller organisations often require more comprehensive support, whereas large
professional NGOs have a focused need for technical support and, to a limited
extent, process support.
AME provides
limited financial support for a certain period (mostly three years) to enable
the NGO to establish the PTD process and to enable farmers to try out
technologies. The financial support is intended as seed money; it is not
full-fledged funding.
The NGO makes
staff available for implementing PTD activities with farmers. The staff members
are trained as trainers and, in due course, take over guidance and support of
the PTD process.
The NGO makes
sure that, after three years, alternative funding arrangements have been made,
if needed, to implement PTD processes and to scale up.
The NGO
commits itself to spreading the PTD approach to other villages and to
networking with other NGOs.
The support
given to each organisation is specific, depending on background and experience
– a different starting point and mix of social and technical development and a
varying degree of complexity. AME prefers to work with NGOs that are active
members of larger networks, because this enhances the potential for scaling up.
We aim at building up network teams that can handle the training needs of
member organisations in the long term. This will ensure sustained capacity
building and a lateral spread of efforts within the district.
Training is
participative and experiential: the experience of the participants is the starting
point for both practical and theoretical learning. The training addresses
social, technical, method and process aspects. These are all interconnected.
The NGOs are
often more concerned with social than with technical issues. However, without
an adequate understanding of the technical aspects of dryland agriculture, it
would be difficult to go into meaningful PTD processes. Technical knowledge is
therefore brought into the PTD curriculum for the NGOs. Many of our partner
organisations, especially the larger NGOs, appreciate in particular this
technical input, as it is not accessible to them through any other source. The
problem for AME is finding agronomists with a process sensitivity and systems
perspective.
First phase of
training for NGOs and farmers (1997–99)
Initially, the
emphasis is on conducting training in the field around the PTD processes that
have been initiated. From the second year onwards, we start
training-of-trainers (ToT) programmes for NGO field staff and for farmers with
proven training capacity.
Training
consists of:
A season-long PTD training
process, starting in Year 1 and continuing in Years 2 and 3;
Strategic workshops for chief
functionaries of the NGOs, from Year 1;
A season-long ToT process for NGO trainers
and farmer trainers who, after three years, take over the management and
implementation of the PTD process; from Year 2.
We aim at an
equal men-women ratio in training programmes but the minimum should be 30%
women. To enable women to participate, flexibility regarding training timing
and venue is a MUST. Women MUST be consulted about these aspects. Participation
of men and women participants is closely monitored during the season. Reasons
for dropout are recorded and, if possible, attended to.
Box 6: A season-long training for NGO
field staff and farmers
This is a
comprehensive field-based training that covers practices and concepts,
technical, social and organisational aspects of a PTD process. The training is
conducted with a group of about 20 men and women farmers and 5–10 NGO field
staff and consists of a series of modules that are conducted at appropriate
times before, during and after the farming season. The set-up of a season-long
PTD training is somewhat similar to that of a FFS in IPM, but the focus is more
on experimentation.
Modules in a
season-long training are:
PTD concepts
and approach
Identifying
problems and possible solutions
Gender
mainstreaming in the PTD process
Step-wise field-based
training with focus on the technical aspects of the problems identified and the
technologies being tested
Monitoring
the PTD process
Evaluating
the results of the experiments and the process of experimentation
Second phase: scaling up, with emphasis on strategic linkages, ToT and
monitoring
After three
years, the trained NGO and a core group of farmer trainers are expected to be
able to carry on by themselves. AME continues to support, but at a different
level:
AME monitors field-level training
and PTD activities implemented by the NGOs and farmer trainers,
AME shifts the emphasis of its
work to creating a conducive environment for farmer groups and NGOs to take
LEISA technologies and PTD processes further.
There is a tendency to under-report the autonomous spread of
eco-friendly technologies. Field-based organisations often lack the skills and
tools to assess such processes. It is important to evolve adequate monitoring
systems to measure the technology spread. This is strategically important, as
it helps to communicate better what is happening – to policymakers, to donors
and to civil society.
During the
second phase of a training process, the focus of attention shifts to:
strengthening stakeholder fora (e.g. District Working Committees and Crop-based
Working Groups); strengthening the forward-backward linkages, e.g. helping NGOs
set up bio-control laboratories, doing a joint study on marketing models,
establishing seed banks with SHGs, facilitating the establishment of village
shops for eco-friendly inputs run by women’s SHGs.
At the moment,
in 2001, the second phase is beginning to build up momentum. Many
second-generation PTD processes have been initiated but it is too early to draw
conclusions.
Joint implementation of PTD processes
In our
concentration areas, we developed a fairly structured approach to PTD because
most farmers have little time and interest if they do not see scope for some
immediate results. We chose specific entry points and identified a ‘potential’
package of practices in consultation with farmers, NGOs and researchers, which
the farmers then tried out and modified.
Entry-point activities
In 1996 we
started our comprehensive area programmes with a process of mutual rapport building.
As part of the problem identification and institutional scanning process, we
identified NGOs and NGO networks in each area that were interested in
collaboration and had potential to take up PTD processes. We then jointly
selected entry-point activities: we focused our attention initially on specific
problems experienced by farmers in one or a few annual crops which were central
in the farmers’ livelihoods system. The choice was made after careful study of
the prevailing farming systems and meetings with farmers and other
stakeholders. We used elements of the RAAKS methodology to arrive at a shared
decision. Thus, different strategies and entry points emerged for our three
concentration areas.
Box 7: Entry points for PTD in Andhra
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
In Andhra
Pradesh the focus was on groundnut, this being the main sustenance factor for a
large population of farmers. In the southern part of this State and in
neighbouring districts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, groundnut is cultivated
extensively.[6] The
focus on groundnut helped in establishing a working group of institutional
actors involved in groundnut production, right from the second year of PTD
experimentation. This group has evolved into a strong platform for joint
action. The partners have begun to address issues such as village-level seed
production and storage and the aflatoxin problem in groundnut. There is also a
move toward intercropping in groundnut.
In Tamil Nadu the thrust was toward integrated management of pests and
diseases in paddy and cotton. This was the outcome of a consultative process
with stakeholders, using RAAKS methods. The FFS approach was adopted because,
especially for paddy, the technologies that form part of the IPM ‘package’ have
mostly proven to be effective and hence there did not seem to be a pressing
need for further experimentation. In FFS, the focus is more on training,
following an experiential learning approach, and less on experimentation than
in the case of PTD. Another reason for adopting FFS as a strategy in Tiruchi
was the fact that the DoA was already following this approach; adopting it gave
scope for collaboration and helped to gain official recognition for our work.
Our team in Raichur took an
approach that was a ‘mix’ of the approaches taken in the other two areas.
Raichur District faces a peculiar situation: half of the district has a typical
dryland scenario, but the other half is in the command area of the Tungabhadra
River Irrigation Project. This area has its own, quite different, share of
ecological and social problems. Dependency on chemical inputs is high, and the
whole system of agricultural production is strongly dominated by a nexus of
commercial and political interests. Few NGOs work in this area, as it is
considered less poor. However, it includes about 40,000 farm households that
have little or no access to the Tungabhadra irrigation water. This was a more
difficult environment for starting a programme. However, after a slow start,
AME’s Raichur team built up momentum. One of Raichur’s success stories is about
a village in Gangawathi that collectively shifted from very high-external-input
paddy cultivation to completely organic cultivation within only three years.
Farmers, once they see that alternatives are possible, quickly adopted
effective ecological practices.
We made sure
that, before going into detailed discussions with the farmers about possible
experiments, we could suggest to them technologies that had been tested
elsewhere and had proven to be reasonably successful. The ethical ‘bottom line’
was that we did not want to encourage farmers to experiment with technologies
that had no reasonable chance of success. Of course, there are always the
unpredictable weather conditions; here, the bottom line was that the crop yield
from experimental plots should not be worse than that from the control plot.
In all areas,
we encouraged farmers to share their knowledge about indigenous technologies.
In the process, it became clear that they did not have their own answers for
many of the problems they are facing. If they had had them, they would have
solved their problems long ago. The focus of the PTD processes was primarily on
testing and adapting eco-friendly technologies that had been developed
elsewhere. This was especially the case for groundnut, which grows under most
marginal and degraded conditions. For paddy and cotton, farmers suggested
several indigenous technologies for further testing.
We introduced a
system of revolving funds. These were given via the NGO to the farmers’ SHG; it
was the SHG’s responsibility to manage the funds. The purpose was to enable
farmers to procure the macro inputs required for the experiment (seeds, organic
fertilisers) in time. A more strategic long-term objective was to enable
farmers to prove to the regular banks that the LEISA package tested by them is
economically viable and thus worth considering for a regular loan. As the rural
banks are already very familiar with the concept of lending to SHGs, the
logical next step would be to lend money to SHGs for eco-friendly agricultural
inputs.
Box 8: Revolving funds
The experience with revolving funds
has been interesting but mixed. In one of AME’s concentration areas, much importance
was given to training the SHGs and NGOs in management of revolving funds. In
this area, there was a high level of discipline and the funds revolved in a
period of three years from one group to the next. In another area, less
importance was given initially to training and there was less discipline at NGO
level in monitoring the fund management. Drought conditions added to the
problem of repayment, as there were several successive years with very low
yields.
The demonstration effect to banks has worked: several banks are now
positively inclined to lend to farmer groups that apply LEISA technologies.
However, these policies need to be institutionalised.
Revolving funds
are an effective instrument in two ways: they help farmers decrease their dependency
on moneylenders, and they can be used to show the formal banking system that
low-input agriculture is viable. Adequate management of the revolving funds is
essential. This means solid training of NGOs and SHGs on the principles and
procedures of managing revolving funds.
Joint Experimentation as a Platform for
Learning
Sharing between Farmers, NGOs and AME
Involvement of Researchers and DoA Staff in Field-level
Experiments
Shifting
Roles in Implementation
Shifting Responsibilities at Farmer Level: The Need for
Gender Mainstreaming
Monitoring and Evaluation of Experiments
The Platform
Experimentation
is a collective process. AME works with groups, never with individual farmers.
We work with partner NGOs that are closely involved in field-level
implementation of the PTD process, the social organisation around it and
process monitoring. At appropriate moments, we bring in researchers, or they
step in out of their own interest. Wherever possible, we involve DoA field
staff in the experimentation process.
Figure 5: Learning shared – from farmer interactions to institutional
working groups and back to farmers
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Farmer Groups
At the village
level, the entry point for PTD experiments is an existing group that has been
established mostly with support of the partner NGO involved in the PTD process.
This is most often a SHG, sometimes a Watershed Development Association. There
are very few situations where there were no existing social organisations when
AME entered the scene; in these situations, we initiated the formation of SHGs.
It is extremely worthwhile to graft PTD
processes on existing farmer institutions. They share their insights with many
others. The tendency is to share the result of their learning (which technology
has worked) rather than the process.
The existing
SHGs were formed with a different purpose than PTD. They were primarily
intended as collectives for credit and savings management, but gradually became
platforms for several other community activities. When the idea of joint
experimentation was introduced to these groups, many were interested. In the
past five years, SHGs have proven to be not only suitable institutional ‘entry
points’ but have become platforms for village-level sharing and springboards
for scaling up.
Box 9: Kadiri Women’s Federation fuels PTD in groundnut production
Kadiri is
situated in drought-prone Anantapur District (Andhra Pradesh), the largest
groundnut-producing district in India. Since the late 1960s groundnut has gradually
monopolised the farming system. From the 1980s monocropping of groundnut became
common practice. Now, 85% of the drylands (about 850,000 ha) is under
groundnut. Myrada, a large NGO, started working in Kadiri in 1982 with a focus
on wasteland development, resettlement of the landless poor and participatory
watershed development. Women’s SHGs were established. Because of continuous
monocropping, groundnut had become vulnerable to attacks of pests and diseases.
Yields were declining. Farmers had become indebted to local moneylenders. The
SHGs, being involved in credit and savings, became instrumental in decreasing
the farmers’ dependence on moneylenders.
In 1997 the
women’s SHGs formed a Federation (Pragati Mahila Samakya) with the support of
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and Myrada. Total membership was
2250 women. In the same year, erratic rainfall led to a shortage of seed.
Mahila Samakya contacted the District Collector, who promised to help them but
asked: “What will you contribute?” Within five days, the women remitted the
equivalent of 16,000 Euro into their collective account as assurance for seed
repayment. This showed the emerging power of the Federation. District
Authorities arranged for release of 3600 bags of groundnuts from the Andhra
Pradesh State Seed Development Corporation (APSSDC). UNDP supported the effort
by providing over 21,000 Euro worth of seed capital for Mahila Samakya. At the
end of the season, the Federation – thanks to their discipline and unity – was
able to repay the groundnut seed to the APSSDC.Also in 1997, AME initiated PTD
with one women’s SHG, Venkateshwara Raita Sangha. The members tried out
technologies for improving groundnut production. They identified three
effective technologies: gypsum application, rhizobium and application of
farmyard manure (FYM). They were so convinced about the usefulness of these
technologies that they decided to share them with other members of the
Federation. Thus, Mahila Samakya became a platform for sharing information and
knowledge on LEISA. On request, AME conducted training on LEISA technologies
for groundnut for the functionaries of the Federation. They had formed their
own training team that trained, in turn, the members of 45 SHGs and their
families in PTD and LEISA technologies. Women prove that, if given the space,
they can move the earth!
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Sharing between Farmers, NGOs and
AME
Sharing between
the ‘primary’ stakeholders in this process takes place in several ways: during
the weekly field visits of the NGO, during training conducted by AME, at the
monthly review meetings between AME and the NGO, and at a meeting with farmers
and NGOs to evaluate PTD results. These meetings are followed by a regional
meeting of representatives of all PTD farmer groups across the three states.
This regional meeting feeds again into the annual meeting of the Crop-based
Working Groups for Groundnut and Cotton.
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Involvement of
Researchers and DoA Staff in Field-level Experiments
We invite
researchers and government extension staff to join at important stages in a PTD
process. In the preparatory stage, we ask researchers to share their knowledge
about suitable technologies. Once the experiments have started, we invite them
to visit at regular intervals and to give inputs into the season-long training.
Again at the end of the season, we invite them to join in the evaluation of
experiments. Sometimes, we organise specific field days: researchers, DoA
staff, farmer groups from neighbouring villages and the local press are invited
to visit the farmers’ fields and have discussion with the experimenting
farmers.
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Shifting Roles in Implementation
Initially, AME
was the prime mover in PTD processes in all the areas of operation. Much effort
went into training NGO field staff and chief functionaries in the PTD approach.
Gradually, the NGOs assumed greater responsibilities, taking over some of AME’s
roles. From 1999 onwards, the NGOs that were involved since 1996 started
facilitating PTD processes on their own. By and large, this transfer of
responsibilities has been successful, but there have been a few hurdles:
There is a fairly high turnover of
staff in many NGOs because of low salaries, insecure funding etc. This ‘fact of
NGO life’ slowed down the transfer of responsibilities. In some cases, we had
to start all over again after three years, as most experienced staff had left.
Independently facilitating a PTD
process requires considerable experience and sensitivity to participatory
processes. It did not always work. There is often a tendency to ‘fall back’
into a prescriptive mode, rather than keeping up the spirit of experimentation.
This led us to
a reflection on the role of NGOs in PTD processes. Not in all cases are NGOs
strong enough to anchor such processes. In addition to this, NGOs expressed a
few reservations when it came to the question as to who should take the PTD
process further. Several NGOs felt that the process was time-consuming; they
had also other things to do. For them, PTD is only one of their several
projects and programmes. Once a number of technologies had been tested (during
the period 1996–99), they saw little reason for continuing in the experimental
mode; they felt that the time had been reached to spread the ‘proven’
technologies to other farmers, villages and NGOs in their networks. As one NGO
leader put it: ‘You give us the technology; we will do our bit of lobbying to
ensure that as many people as possible get to know about it’.
It is important to acknowledge and respect
the partner NGO’s position vis-à-vis PTD and institutionalisation.
There is a need to make donors aware about LEISA
and PTD within the context of sustainable rural livelihood issues.
Much importance has to be given to working
directly with farmer trainers who ultimately carry the process.
This made us to
realise that, for many NGOs, ultimately the outcome of the PTD process – a
farmer-proven technology – is more important than the process itself. This
attitude is logical in the context of:
Survival
strategies of the NGO itself: In most cases, there is still a heavy
dependence on donors. PTD does not yet enjoy much recognition from donors, as
it is knowledge-intensive, deals with small numbers and is not easily
replicable and, hence, no ‘impressive’ results can be shown;
Farmers’
survival strategies: Farmers have little ‘space’ for
experimentation; hence the ethical question arises: How much more can we
‘burden’ them?
The
NGO’s mission: Most NGOs we work with are not primarily driven by
the mission to strengthen the farmers’ capacity for agricultural change (though
this is a primary concern of AME). Their priorities are more in the sphere of
social and political justice, which includes making information about working
technologies accessible to underprivileged groups. There is a subtle but
important difference in emphasis here.
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Shifting
Responsibilities at Farmer Level: The Need for Gender Mainstreaming
Agriculture in dryland
areas is increasingly a women-managed affair. Women’s SHGs are now completely
institutionalised and have become officially accepted as very important
mechanisms for people-centred development. By 2001 there is hardly any
institution that does not claim to be gender-aware. Women’s involvement has
become a matter of fact in most areas where we work. We see a trend of women
taking over PTD processes: in 1996 about 30% of farmers involved in PTD
processes were women; in 2000 65% were women. But is that the same as gender
mainstreaming? No. There are plenty
of problems when one looks at the institutional and field-level realities of
gender mainstreaming.
First of all,
even though women play an increasingly important role in the field, this fact
is yet to be reflected in a more gender-aware approach in the major
agricultural institutions, which remain very much male-dominated. Secondly, the
success of the women’s SHGs has resulted in a certain complacency on the part
of the men in the village: women’s status has increased but also their
responsibilities and worries. Thirdly, many organisations work with women, but they are not
gender-aware and hence they contribute, knowingly or unknowingly, to
increased physical and mental burdens for women.
Box 10: Why involve
both women and men?
Women
participated in a season-long training on IPM in cotton. In the course of the
training, they became confident that they could manage growing cotton without
having to use pesticides. However, at a critical stage, their husbands who had
not participated in the training because they had left the management of the
cotton crop to their wives, decided to intervene. They instructed their wives
to apply pesticides, which – because it was done at the wrong time – led to a
reduction rather than an increase in yield.
There is no
easy way out. The first step is to bring about greater institutional gender
awareness in the organisations. In the context of PTD, this means that there is
a need to analyse critically women’s and men’s actual and potential roles and
responsibilities vis-à-vis the
activities and crops that form part of the PTD process. Organisations should
neither blindly work with men, nor blindly work with women. AME promotes a
household approach, whereby a conscious effort is made to involve both women
and men in the PTD process, along functional lines. This approach has been
partly successful. The tendency of many organisations is to fall back into
familiar patterns, i.e. to work either with men or with women. We have learnt
that, whenever women and men are jointly involved in a PTD process, the quality
of learning is greatly enhanced and so is the overall outcome of the PTD
process. As the Kadiri Women’s Federation case illustrates, once women are
involved, they have great energy to take the process further, in not only
qualitative but also quantitative terms.
Box 11: Stumbling blocks to gender mainstreaming[7]
In our effort
to mainstream gender in the context of PTD, we have come across a number of stumbling
blocks in the form of biased perceptions about women and men:
1."Women do not have a say in
agricultural decision making."
In spite of
changing realities in agriculture, many people – NGO workers, researchers and
others – find it difficult to acknowledge the reality and to plan the PTD
process accordingly.
2."Participatory approaches are
'naturally' gender sensitive."
PTD, like any
other participatory approach, provides no guarantee that women are also
participants in the process being initiated. Women's participation will not
happen automatically, it needs to be facilitated.
3."Trickle across: from men to
women, from women to men"
Many
extension programmes were based on the classical incorrect assumption that
information which had reached men would automatically trickle across to women.
During the past decade or so, we see instances of ‘reversed’ trickle-across
assumptions. Organisations have started to interact directly with women, but
here the same problem of non-trickling or partial trickling across of
information can be seen. There is an additional problem, too: men are still the
final decision-makers. This has lead to frustrating experiences of women.
4."Gender specialists take care of
'the gender aspect."
It is often
taken for granted that, within development organisations, women will take care
of 'the gender aspect' (whatever it is). The only way to overcome this obstacle
is real teamwork and intensive gender sensitisation within organisations.
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Monitoring and Evaluation of
Experiments
Monitoring
takes place at four levels: individual farmer, SHG, NGO and AME. Farmers’
monitoring and evaluation focus on crop performance, labour requirements and
cost-benefit analysis. At the time of training, farmers received notebooks from
the NGO and are trained to record every relevant observation regarding crop
growth and conditions, especially rainfall. The literate write down their
observations; the illiterate use signs to note weather conditions and some
other parameters. Farmers discuss their observations in their group every week
or fortnight. PTD is part of the SHG agenda. A copy of the SHG meeting minutes
is sent to the NGO. The NGO in turn submits monthly and quarterly reports to
AME and an annual audited statement of their account as well as the SHG’s
revolving fund account.
NGOs address crop
performance, the extent of farmers’ involvement as experimenters and the
interactions between farmers, including gender dynamics. This monitoring is
done on a weekly basis. AME monitoring integrates the other two levels and is
done on a fortnightly to monthly basis. It addresses the technical,
socio-economic, gender and process aspects of the PTD process.
At the end of
the farming season, farmers’ meetings are held, where farmers share their
learning. First they discuss among themselves in their own village and then
they share their experiences with other farmers. At a later stage,
district-level meetings are held where representatives of several farmer groups
share their findings. In the case of groundnut, we also organised
cross-regional meetings where farmers from three states met to review and share
their learning.
In these
meetings, farmers present the results of their experiments. The results are
jointly analysed by farmers, NGO staff and AME facilitators. Farmers are asked
to state their indicators for success of a certain experiment. There are
several complexities here. For instance, when conducting an experiment on the
same plot for the second year, there may be an accumulative effect of organic
matter applied in Year 1 and Year 2. Or a farmer may hardly harvest any
groundnut crop because of erratic rainfall, yet she still considers her
experiment successful because the loss in terms of investment made is less than
that on the control plot. The evaluative process and outcome of these meetings
again becomes an input into the meetings of the Crop-based Working Groups
(groundnut and cotton).
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Documentation
Documentation has
been done more or less systematically in all areas. The results of several
years of experimentation now serve as a basis for the production of a PTD
training manual and crop production manuals on various crops. We are in the
process of preparing these documents, which will become important tools in our
scaling up efforts.
Documentation
is a difficult and tedious part of PTD. The effort required to set up and to
maintain a good documentation system should not be underestimated. Most people
involved in PTD are not writers but field workers. Therefore: the simpler the
system, the better.
Top Joint
Experimentation as a Platform for Learning
Results and Impact of PTD Processes
Number of Farmers Involved in PTD
Processes
Number of NGO Staff and Farmers
Trained in LEISA Technologies and PTD
Spread of
Technologies and Processes
Results and
impact of PTD processes are multi-dimensional. They vary between farmers,
between crops, between villages and areas, and from year to year. Impact occurs
not only at the farmer level, but also in the organisations that got involved
in these collaborative efforts, and beyond. Impact means spread of technologies
and approaches, within one farm - from one crop to another, from entry point to
system level, then from farmer to farmer, from village to village. The impact
also spreads within and between organisations, and so on.
Here we give a
broad picture of visible results and impact of PTD processes in our three
concentration areas. We highlight common elements rather than location-specific
details and variations. That would distract the attention from the red line of
this paper, which basically focuses on processes of institutionalisation and
not on the specific results of different PTD processes[8].
However, we present some specific examples that give a ‘feel’ for the impact of
PTD processes on people’s lives. We look first at the concrete results of our
PTD efforts in terms of number of farmers reached, then discuss the impact of
PTD processes on those farm households which were directly involved in these
processes and finally discuss how and to what extent technologies as well as
the PTD process itself have spread within and beyond the areas where PTD
processes were initiated.
When discussing
impact, we must be aware of our own limited timeframe. In most areas where we
work, PTD was initiated in 1997. We can make observations about the process,
results and impact, but it is too early to make statements about the
sustainability of the impact. Keeping this limitation in mind, we do feel
confident to express what we expect could happen in the coming five years, and
what would be the conditions to be met for a sustained impact and enhanced
spread of technologies and process. This is important for our own understanding
of ‘where we are’, and can also serve as a basis for decision-making by
policymakers and donors regarding support mechanisms for these processes.
Number of Farmers Involved in PTD
Processes
In 1997 we started
doing experiments with 270 farmers in two districts, in collaboration with 12
NGOs. As of now, in 2001, we are involved in PTD processes with 1900 farmers in
25 districts, with an estimated outreach to another 10,300 ‘extension farmers’.
These farmers do not take part in PTD experiments but are exposed to the
technologies tested through PTD and are encouraged also to try them. Only a
small part of these farmers (about 300) are in direct contact with AME; the
rest are guided by NGO staff trained by AME. Altogether, eight NGO networks are
involved, with a total of about 180 member NGOs.
Figure 6: Diagram of number of farmers involved in PTD processes
1996-2001
The figure
shows that there was a rather modest growth in the number of farmers involved
in PTD process in the first three years. In 2000 there was a growth spurt,
which can largely be attributed to the fact that, by that time, the NGO and
farmer trainers started taking up PTD processes independently. In 2001 we
decided in consultation with the NGOs to consolidate training efforts before
embarking on further expansion.
In the first
three years, all PTD farmers were monitored on a weekly to fortnightly basis by
AME and the NGO. Since 1999 the NGOs have taken more responsibility for
monitoring. With the growing numbers it was decided to do intensive monitoring
with only part of the PTD farmers (30–50%, varying between groups). Other
farmers do take part in experimentation but their farm data are not collected
and processed by the NGO and/or AME.
Top Results and Impact of PTD
Processes
Number of NGO Staff and Farmers Trained in LEISA Technologies and PTD
Table 1 shows
how many NGO staff and farmers went through season-long training and ToT
processes between 1996 and 2001. Shorter courses organised by AME are not
included. The table also shows the shift in training focus, which was initially
on season-long training directly supporting PTD processes in the field. From
1999 onwards, there was greater emphasis on ToT for NGOs staff and farmers.
This led to a significant increase in the number of farmers trained, both those
directly involved in PTD and ‘extension farmers’; most of them were trained by
NGO staff, not by AME. After 1999, AME continued intensive direct interaction
with about 300 farmers through PTD and season-long training, with a focus on
second-generation PTD experiments: Integrated Farming Systems, Seed Village
concept, storage and marketing experiments. Furthermore, AME continues to guide
the NGOs and farmer trainers and monitors their training activities.
With growing numbers, much attention must be paid to the design of
monitoring systems that not only monitor the number of farmers trained by NGOs
and farmer trainers but also give feedback on the quality of the training.
Not all ‘PTD
processes’ implemented by NGO staff and farmers are PTD in essence. Only a
minority of those trained, about 10–20%, develop a real feeling for PTD. The
rest are good communicators, who can explain to farmers about LEISA
technologies, but more in an extension mode. In our view, this kind of dilution
has to be accepted as a fact of life. It is difficult and perhaps not even
relevant to draw a line between PTD and ‘non’ PTD. What is important, however,
is the fact that – within each group of trained people – whether NGO staff,
farmers or government people, there is a minority who can inspire the rest.
Table 1: Number of NGO staff and farmers trained in PTD and LEISA
technologies
|
Year |
NGO staff newly trained |
Farmers trained (cumulative) |
|||
|
Season-long training / PTD |
ToT |
Season-long training / PTD |
‘Extension farmers’ |
ToT |
|
|
1996 |
10 |
---- |
30 |
---- |
---- |
|
1997 |
64 |
---- |
135 |
135 |
---- |
|
1998 |
63 |
18 |
350 |
410 |
10 |
|
1999 |
70 |
36 |
763 |
1205 |
22 |
|
2000 |
61 |
48 |
1600 |
6900 |
28 |
|
2001 |
80 |
35 |
1900 |
10300 |
35 |
|
Total |
348 |
137 |
1900 |
10300 |
95 |
Top Results
and Impact of PTD Processes
Impact of PTD Processes
Table 2 gives an
overview of the immediate impact of PTD on the participating farmers and on
their farms. It shows the dimensions of impact and the indicators that were
used to assess impact. Sometimes, indicators ‘emerged’ out of the PTD process.
Table 2: Impact of PTD processes on participating farmers and on their
farms
|
Impact on |
Indicators |
Remarks |
|
Knowledge about LEISA |
Farmers know about LEISA practices: - importance of FYM application - rationale for reducing fertilisers - rationale for reducing pesticides - knowledge about alternatives[9]
and able to explain how they work |
Their knowledge has been checked
through small individual tests and observation of group discussions. |
|
Application of knowledge |
FYM application up > increase organic matter content
in soil; farmers stopped selling FYM Fertiliser use down[10] Pesticides use down > less business for pesticide
dealer Farmers stopped selling neem seeds because they are now
used in botanical pesticides Extensive use of cow urine; has become a commodity which
is also sold Increased use of green manure Planting trees on bunds, etc..... |
NOT all knowledge is applied by all. Some major reasons: - Sometimes inputs are not available (e.g. bio-control
agents, bio-fertilisers, organic fertilisers). These issues are discussed by
SHG, NGO and AME; steps are taken to resolve them where possible[11]. - There may be labour constraints
for women or men. Especially marginal groundnut farmers may decide not to
apply a LEISA practice when rains are poor. Alternative use of their labour
(e.g. as farm labourer) gives safer returns. |
|
Farm performance |
Increased yields: paddy 20–40% on average, cotton
10–20%, groundnut 20–30% Increased quality of produce[12] Decreased risk; yield stability Increased on-farm biodiversity: inter-/ mixed cropping,
trees, green manure Reduced pest and disease incidence Higher net profits because lower cultivation costs:
paddy 30–40%, cotton 20–30%, groundnut 10–20% Better soil health and moisture retention capacity Higher crop productivity in
following years due to residual effect of manure |
Paddy shows steady increase. Yield increase in groundnut and cotton varies from year
to year, depending mainly on rainfall pattern. Cotton yield increase sometimes insignificant due to
pests, yet net profit higher because important savings on less pesticides,
from 16–24 sprayings to 6–8 sprayings. Gradual build-up of soil fertility
leads to more stable yields. |
|
Social organisation and joint
learning |
PTD as an activity has been integrated in SHG agenda Collective decision-making on input purchase, pest and
disease management, marketing Improved access to knowledge centres: farmers visit as
group Farmers visit each other’s farms
more frequently and learn from each other |
Observation of group meetings and
analysis of minutes quickly reveal the extent of social coherence. |
|
Gender balance |
Some technologies are labour intensive especially for
women, e.g. bio-fertiliser and mussoorie
phosphate application. Some technologies are big labour savers, e.g. in cotton
IPM women are spared the work of fetching water for pesticide application (=
800 km walking with water per acre per cropping season). Knowledge empowerment of women through PTD is important
aspect of a larger empowerment process. Women’s mobility increased; they visit
agricultural-knowledge and training centres and regional farmer meetings. Women mention less reproductive
problems, which they attribute to being less in contact with pesticides. |
Women take labour increase positively, as long as it is
offset by benefits in terms of improved status and/or more say in decisions
about farm and money. Knowledge = power. Especially for women, more knowledge
leads to more self-respect and respect by others. From PTD, they move on to
other issues, such as meetings with the District Collector to negotiate seed
purchase. These are big leaps forward! In several cases, women resisted pressures of husbands
to go back to chemical farming. |
|
Health and nutrition |
Reduction in pesticide use >
less health problems, lower health bills, food tastes better and can be kept
overnight (rice), better storage capacity |
Skin rashes, loss of appetite,
respiratory tract problems and reproductive health problems are frequently
mentioned in connection with pesticides. Many farmers claim that their health
bills have reduced after cutting down on pesticides. |
|
Innovation capacity |
Application of concepts learned through PTD on other
crops Independent experimentation with technologies e.g.
bio-pesticides, staggered intercropping in cotton |
During farmer meetings observations
were made on: farmers’ interest in testing new ideas; degree of enthusiasm
with which experiments are discussed and shared with others, including
non-PTD farmers; frequency of meeting, attendance; growth in experimentation
skills; information asked for; ability to identify problems and think of
possible solutions independently |
|
Over-all awareness >
empower-ment |
Confidence in own capacity to improve agriculture has
increased Farmer groups resist pressures of pesticides dealers, money
lenders Ability to see larger connections
in agro-ecosystems, regaining connectedness with natural processes |
Visible from independent initiatives of farmers to carry
on experiments, share learning with others, establish and maintain contacts
with eco-friendly input suppliers. Some pesticides dealers had to change to
other business. Farmers decided to grow trees on
field bunds, as they provide living space for predator insects. General
attitude to pesticide use has changed; farmers are aware of natural balance
between pests and predators. Respect for soil has increased. |
Top Results and Impact of PTD
Processes
Spread of Technologies and Processes
The impact
study in Raichur gave some useful insights into the spread of technologies
tested through PTD processes, and of innovation processes themselves. A number
of important factors were identified which influenced the extent to which
technologies spread.
The crop: The extent of technology spread differs between in
groundnut, cotton and paddy. This is related to the overall profitability of
the crop, the risk involved in growing it and the socio-economic background of
the farmer:
Groundnut is grown mostly by
resource-poor farmers, who have a strong tendency to avert risks. Hence, it is
quite understandable that the spread of LEISA technologies for groundnut, even
if proven successful by PTD farmers, is comparatively slow. We observed a
spread of about 1:3, i.e. from one farmer to three farmers, but also noticed
that the ratio is growing year by year;
In the case of cotton, there is a
strong perceived need for change. Because farmers are completely fed up with
applying larger and larger doses of less and less effective pesticides, they
are highly motivated to try out alternatives. Autonomous spread is up to 1:7
inside PTD villages and 1:3 outside.
In the case of paddy, the expected
results from alternative technologies are very good. Most paddy farmers are in
the small-scale farmer category. Hence, the rate of autonomous spread in paddy
can be as high as 1:10.
Socio-economic conditions of farmers play an important
role: people with slightly larger farms are better able to take risks and
therefore have a different attitude toward trying alternatives. A practice is
easily adopted when old farmers were already doing it and with good results.
Once someone takes it up again with success, it tends to spread fast. Social
cohesiveness of the group and/or the village also contributes positively to the
extent of spread.
Furthermore,
the user friendliness of a technology is
important: Is it easy to adopt? Are the inputs available? Technologies of which
farmers have seen very positive results in other people’s farms are obviously
adopted easily. It also helps if the technology is also advocated by other
institutions.
Mechanisms of
spread have been found to be:
From farmer to farmer
(friends/relatives):
by working together with relatives
or neighbours; others see the technologies being applied, learn from it and
start to apply in their own field
informal discussions in the
evenings
sharing insights in the market
place (information can spread as far as 60 km)
small-scale farmers cum labourers
learn to use technologies on their bosses’ fields; they try them out gradually
on their own farms
Exposure trips to other
farmers/groups organised by the NGO
From SHG to SHG, often through the
SHG Federation (see next section)
From SHG to Federation
Via the NGO field staff to other
operational areas of the NGO
From NGO field staff to other NGO
staff
From NGO to NGO
From AME to other NGOs.
Top Results and Impact of PTD
Processes
From Joint Experimentation to
Stakeholder Concerted Action
Institutionalisation
of the Working Groups
After taking
specific crops as entry points into PTD, the next step was to form crop-based
working groups. We started involving institutional stakeholders, first of all
researchers and policymakers. We also realised the need to involve suppliers of
eco-friendly inputs: easy access to these was a condition for the success of
the PTD experiments, but even more for the sustainability and replicability of
the technologies tested. Likewise, we involved bank managers to sensitise them
to the potential of alternative eco-friendly technologies and to encourage them
to change their lending policies to small-scale farmers (crop loans were biased
towards chemical inputs). The objective of forming these groups was to create a
mechanism for joint learning and information exchange with a focus on
‘bottom-up’ flows of information, and also to strengthen important
forward-backward linkages.
Simultaneously,
a different type of platform development took place. A national-level Steering
Committee and three District Working Committees were formed, with
representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and State Departments of
Agriculture, research institutions, partner NGOs, banks and farmers. These
committees were clearly related to the AME project, as they were a formal part
of the institutional agreement between the GoI and the Netherlands Government
regarding implementation of AME as a bilateral project. These committees,
however, were also taken up as functional mechanisms for promoting concerted
stakeholder action rather than ‘just’ being formal structures. They have now
become instrumental in the process of institutionalising AME as an organisation
and in strengthening its position as a linkage institution for sustainable
agriculture. They are likely to continue when AME becomes an organisation.
Groundnut Working Group
In 1997, AME
made its first initiative to bring a larger group of stakeholders together on a
common learning and action platform. The focus was on groundnut. Researchers
who had been involved in PTD processes were invited to a meeting, along with
suppliers of eco-friendly inputs, the NGOs involved in PTD processes,
representatives of the DoA and bank officials. Since 1997, such meetings have
been held annually. They have become an event where stakeholders meet, discuss
and review the outcome of the past year’s PTD processes in groundnut and other
relevant developments in the larger ’groundnut scenario’. The implications in
terms of action to be initiated by different stakeholders are then discussed.
After four
years, this working group has built up a significant momentum. It has formed
the basis for several joint research initiatives between researchers and NGOs.
The GoI has acknowledged the importance of this ‘model of collaborative action’
and wants to use it as an example for other crops and also wants to pursue the
official validation of farmer-tested technologies with the help of this working
group. Intensive learning is happening and up-front feedback is being given
during these meetings.
Box 12: Peer-group pressure
The fourth
groundnut meeting was held in February 2001. AME and NGO partners presented the
results of seed trials with ten new varieties released by ICRISAT and a few
regional research stations. One presenter explained that, in their experiment,
farmers harvested the crop after 116 days, instead of 90 days as recommended by
scientists. He explained that this delay was because the women who were to
harvest the groundnut were busy transplanting paddy at that point in time. A
scientist from one of the institutions that had made seed available reacted
very critically, saying that the experiment was totally unscientific. The
fieldworker replied that this was a real-life constraint; whether scientific or
not, it was an important lesson from the PTD process. Other scientists
supported the fieldworker’s view; they argued that the person who ‘stuck’ to his
scientific principles had not yet understood what PTD was all about and needed
some more exposure.
National
White Grub Programme CRIDA NRCG National
Research:
State
Universities:
Figure 7: Groundnut Working Group (2000)
The Groundnut
Working Group became a platform from which several collaborative activities were
launched. AME’s role has been to facilitate collaboration between research
institutions and NGOs in very practical terms and to bring a PTD perspective
into the research activities.
In 1998, a collaborative project –
All India White Control Programme – with ICRISAT and ACIAR (Australian Council
for Agricultural Research) started to control white-grub damage in groundnuts.
AME and its partners assisted in collection of adults, on-farm experiments, PTD
experiments, and knowledge and skill dissemination. AME employs the field
assistants and pays part of the scientist’s salary.
From 1999 onwards, varieties from
four regional research centres and ICRISAT have been tested for performance
under rainfed conditions on poor soils. Some better-performing varieties have
been multiplied by farmers, with assistance from scientists for roguing, on a
contract with the SHG guaranteed by an NGO.
Since 2000, AME is involved in
collecting samples under the World Bank-sponsored NATP (National Agricultural
Technology Project) and the Aflatoxin Project sponsored by the UK Department
for International Development (DFID) in collaboration with ICRISAT and the
National Council for Research on Groundnut. The three-year study aims at
identifying ‘hot spot’ areas in regard to aflatoxin in groundnut at various
stages – harvest, wholesale storage etc – and arriving at solutions to reduce
occurrence and spread of the toxin.
In 2000, Anantapur and Kurnool Districts
were plagued by stem necrosis caused by the tobacco streak virus. It is now
clear that the virus is spread from sunflower and a vast number of weeds. In a
collaborative effort with ICRISAT, experiments are carried out to reduce the
incidence of the virus infection: border rows of Bajra (pearl millet). Suspected samples are collected by AME
partners and sent for diagnosis. This should give a picture of the spread.
Awareness campaigns with the DoA have been organised, and work will be done to
start controlling parthenium and a number of other weeds.
Top From Joint
Experimentation to Stakeholder Concerted Action
The Cotton Working Group
A similar initiative towards formation of a learning and action platform was taken in 2000, when a Cotton Working Group was formed. This time, the prime mover was not AME but another support NGO that found the ‘model’ of crop-based working groups useful. The Andhra Pradesh Cotton Network was formed around a group of seven NGOs from seven districts in the State. AME provides technical and strategic support to this network, which also receives financial support from the Andhra Pradesh DoA. The network tries to address the problematic situation faced by cotton farmers. Many of them became heavily indebted as a result of over-dependence on pesticides, poor yields and inappropriate advice. In 1998, there was a wave of ‘cotton suicides’. Though the State Government officially advocates an IPM approach in cotton, the actual field-level implementation of this policy is very limited. There are simply not enough trained extension workers. Therefore, the State Government has warmly welcomed the cotton network initiative. The Cotton Working Group supports this network, feeding it with information about promising cotton IPM technologies that may be considered for testing. At the end of the cropping season, the working group draws the lessons. A novelty in this network is the involvement of a representative of a multinational company specialised in p