Dr. Prakash T.N.and Dr. Tejaswini
Presents the experiences of documenting farmer innovations, indigenous knowledge and technologies and disseminationg them through a newsletter, Hittalgida in local vernacular in Karnataka.
Majority of the farmers in the dryland regions are confronted with uncertain weather conditions, degrading lands and acute resources. Farmers’ Knowledge & Innovations (FK&Is) can be used as an effective alternative to augment low cost, ecofriendly and sustainable technologies for development of dry land agriculture in India.
The prerequiste for scaling up this knowledge is to systematically survey, document and categorise the innovations and indigenous knowledge. After documenting this knowledge appropriately, there are several issues which need to adressed such as: validation and systematisation; diffusion and dissemination; value addition and commercialisation and most importanly, policies and programmes to formalise and encourage such efforts. Hittalgida is the regional partner of Honey Bee Journal which is the dissemination arm of the Honey bee network.
Historically, innovations are considered to be the outcome of survival strategies of the diadvantaged people in the risk prone and vulnerable regions. Over a period of time, a vast repository of knowledge and techniques have been accumulated which in the course of time got dubbed as ‘indigenous knowledge and technolgies’.
Honey bee network, started ten years ago, by Prof. Anil Gupta and his colleagues and friends, with support of regional initiatives like Hittalgida ( in Karnataka ) has been making pioneering effort in eolving policies, programmes and products to document, disseminate Farmers knowledge and innovations and adreesing other related issues.
- Survey and documentation
It is prudent to survey and document FK&Is region wise in the local vernacular in order to capture them fully in their agro-ecological and cultural context with due attention to their historical background. While documenting it is essential to record the indigenous/traditional institutions or cosmovison which govern a particular innovation. It is always advisable to document the FK&Is crop/livestock/enterprise wise in order to facilitate further validation and systemisation.[ For documentation, formal survey, PRA methods need to be complemented with informal methods such as contests, competitions and quizzes.
- Categorisation:
Proper categorisation will further add to the process of validation and systemisation of FK&Is. Categorisation may be made inline with the formal classification of agriculture and livestock operations like pest and disease management, seed treatment, soil and water conservation, veterinary treatments and so on followed in state agricultural universities. The categorisation followed by Hittalagida is given below.
| No.
|
Documentation Particulars | No.of Entries |
| 1 | Indigenous methods of plant protection | 144 |
| 2 | Indigenous seed treatment methods | 83 |
| 3 | Animal husbandry and etno veterinary practices | 133 |
| 4 | Farmers Innovations – equipment’s and implements | 28 |
| 5 | Indigenous methods of controlling vertebrate and invertebrate pests | 10 |
| 6 | Biodiversity:
Local seeds varieties Plant varieties Traditional/native crops |
118 30 56 |
| 7 | Dry and wet land farming technologies | 27 |
| 8 | Tribal agricultural systems – practices and customs | 2 |
| 9 | Indigenous meteorological predication methods | 6 |
| 10 | Indigenous/traditional “institutions” such as rituals, customs, proverbs, sacred grooves and community actions | 44 |
| 11 | Review of literature on indigenous and traditional agriculture | 12 |
| 12 | Native medicinal plants used in human health care | 113 |
| 13 | Indigenous food items, native fruits and vegetables | 32 |
| 14 | Bio-diversity contests, scouting of gross root innovations | 5 |
| 15 | Scientific analysis and validation of indigenous technologies | 5 |
| 16 | Indigenous crop production and organic farming methods | 37 |
| 17 | Native wisdom is every day farming | 101 |
| 18 | Profiles of organic farmers | 18 |
| 19 | Traditional tools and equipments | 7 |
Innovations listed above can also be classified further as products, methods, tools, equipments and techniques. In addition, there are several skill based innovations and a few are very imaginative too. Examples of some of the types of innovations are
- Product innovation: farmers in Malnad regions of Karnataka use the decoction prepared out of Mukkadaka (Lasiosiphon eriocephalus) leaves to control paddy leaf roller.
- Method innovation: for controlling rats, preparing a simple bait by mixing cement or powdered tube light bulb with a fried dish in the plain region.
- Innovations based on cultural practices :.To control striga (Striga asiatica) weed in jowar field, a progressive farmer, Mr. Bharamagouder in Northern Karnataka found out a cultural practice of growing coriander along with jowar. Similarly farmers in coastal districts are growing Campka(michelia champaka) tree in the border of coconut plantation. They have found long ago the repellent property of odour of its flowers against rhinoceros beetle in coconut.
- Specialised and skill based innovations: Paddy farmers follow a method to separate healthy grains from chaff by throwing the grains from a height of 6-7 feet in a circular fashion (similar to a fisherman casting his net Fig. 1). Heavier and harder seeds due to weight collect at the rim of the circle, the rest including the chaff one will have separate layers inside the circle. Similarly, there are very delicate innovations which have to be handled with care and precautions. For instance, to treat cold and cough in animals Ambaji, an ethno veterinarian from northern Karnataka invented a practise of inserting the stem of calotropis plant smeared with turmeric powder mixed in butter in to the nostrils of affected animal (Fig. 2). There are several farmers’ innovations which are imaginative and very interesting. For instance, the same local healer Ambaji has an unique method of curing sprained neck of animals. He applies a mixture prepared out of bath soap and egg albumen over the sprained portion of the affected animal. As the mixture hardens the skin, the animal feeling uncomfortable, begins to kick its legs (Fig. 3).
The practice of controlling monkeys through disturbing group psychology followed in Tumkur district is much more imaginative. People, to be with, make monkeys to snatch half covered eatables like banana purposefully for some time. Once the monkeys are guaranteed of some eatables in this fashion, one fine day, inserted of eatable, a dead snake covered with a paper/cloth is placed. It is up to anybody’s imagination to think how the mistaken monkey finding the dead snake, in his hand behaves. This not only disturbs the entire group but also makes them to leave that place and move far away, not to comeback again !!
There are few innovations which are in the form of design or formulation. These are very much comparable with the formal scientific innovations. For instance, late Purushothama Rao, an organic farmer in Thirthalli, had developed a pesticide formulation Panchagavya – a mixture of milk, curd, ghee, cows urine and dung, five products from cow to prevent wilt disease in pepper. (Panchagavya is given as purifier of body and sole in Hindu religious temples). Mr. Rao had also designed a tank to prepare and collect liquid organic manure using earth worms (Fig. 4)
And finally, there are several examples for farmers innovations in the form of tools and equipment like a wheel barrow to carry wastes and compost invented by Mr. Vittala Rao a progressive farmer in South Kanara, a coastal district of Karnataka and a weed cutter developed by Mr. Padaru Ramakrishna Shastri, a farmer turned agriculture graduate the same district. These possess all the properties of an industrial innovation.
In addition to above two categorisation, FK&Is can also be classified based on their scientific testability and adaptability into four groups as, i) high adoption-low validity, ii) high adoption-high validity, iii) low adoption-high validity and iv) low adoption-low validity. This categorisation would benefit extension agents to take up those innovations which have higher adaptability and to scientific community to concentrate on such innovations which have high validity or scientific testability.
III. Validation and systematisation:
Validation of a farmer’s innovations should not be mistaken for scrutiny and approval by the formal scientists. On the other hand, it is only for the purpose of unavoidable process of systematisation and scaling up FK&Is to make them to reach a larger group. Validation and systematisation also means here understanding the scientific logic behind a particular innovation and making an attempt for generalisation of the logic, if possible, again for the purpose of macro level application. As scientific research and experiments are meant to unearth the hidden logic and truths in the Nature, the same rationalism extends to FK&Is also.
There are two excellent examples of scientific validation of FK&Is by the scientists of University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. Dr. Veena and Dr. Narendranath, two veterinary doctors have validated and systematised an ancient Egyptian method of detecting the pregnancy in cow by making the wheat seeds to germinate in urine of the cow (this method was originally mentioned for pregnant woman). Similarly, the credit of validating the pesticidal properties of the Panchagavy and coming out with an effective mixture called ‘modified Panchagavy’ must go to a plant pathologist, Dr. H.R Ramachandra Reddy and his student “. Padmodhaya at UAS Bangalore. These two are the examples for validation and systematisation of FK&Is by formal science without compromising the basic characteristics FK&Is.
IV Diffusion and dissemination:
There are several FK&Is which, due to their simplicity, low external input dependence and even lower skill and expertise for their application are having very high adaptability in their original forms. Several indigenous soil and water control methods, rat control techniques, seed storage practise and cultural methods explained above are examples for this category. These have to be documented and diffused even across cultures in a regular manner so that people in the similar economic disadvantageous and deprivation could find easy and affordable solutions for their problems at hand.
A newsletter/periodical in the local vernacular can do the job of cross cultural diffusion and dissemination of FK&Is in their original form very effectively. Honey Bee networking with its partners in eight different regional languages is a modest attempt in this respect. Here, one should be sincere, to record the name and address of the individual inventor or community or the region from where the particular FK&I has originated. This provides an opportunity for empowerment of the grass root innovators. This is an issue dealing with intellectual property rights of the grassroots innovators by ensuring that people don’t become poorer by their knowledge and innovation with us. The newsletter also facilitates two way communication between the innovators and others by connecting one innovator with the another through feedback, communication and networking in local language. The philosophy behind Honeybee networking upholds this discourse of liberation, accountability and fairness in documentation and dissemination of farmers’ knowledge and innovations.
- Value addition and commercialisation:
There are many FK&Is which poses high adaptability as well as testability such as bio pesticides like Panchagavya, Mukkadka decoction. Their scientific logic; bio-chemical content mode of action and so on can be analysed and systematised before diffusion so as to enhance effectiveness. However, for the purpose of unavoidable process of scaling up, some amount of value addition and commercialisation of FK&Is in a few cases, becomes inevitable.
Some FK&Is such as plant extracts, formulations need processing and standardisation in order to enhance their longevity,keeping quality and effectiveness if prepared in a larger scale. This obviously calls for a commercial venture with an investment. But value addition and commercialisation have to be accomplished without comprising the basic features of a FK&I. It is feasible a government institution or a co-operative or any state organisation with a service motive, instead of a private body with purely profit motive, to take up the commercialisation of FK&Is. The attempt made by Tropical Botanical Garden Research Institute (TBGRI) in conunercialising a knowledge based innovation of a tribal community; Kani in to a drug called Arogyapacha which contains anti fatigue and anti stress property, is worth emulating here. The TBGRI has also took care to protect the interests of the tribal community by filing patents on behalf of the tribal community on their innovation Arogyapacha and also devised a benefit sharing mechanism with the tribal community. The bad experience of neem, on the other hand, must be an eye opener in this respect. The commercialisation of neem products into biopesticide was attempted by private corporate bodies purely on the basis of profit motives. This and consequently led to all sorts of controversies surrounding the IPRs on it. Creation of a FK&Is data base with full details of the innovators or communities not only facilitates further commercialisation but also helps to protect the IPR interests of the original innovators. Here again, attempt made by Prof. Gupta in creating grassroot innovators data base and his plea far a global registration of such innovations, traditional knowledge and practices must be considered seriously.
And, lastly, there are grassroot innovations in the form of an implement or even machinery such as tilling bullock cart invented by Mr.Amruthbhai Agarwat of Pikhora in Gujarat the wheel barrow and the weed cutter developed in South Kanara, Karnataka which can be easily commercialised with adequate protection of IPRs of the original renovators. In order to promote such innovations, the linkage between innovation, investment and enterprise with adequate reward to the creativity at grassroot level through an appropriate IPR regime is called for. The attempts such as Gujarat Grassroots Innovation Augmentation Network (GAIN) which was set up to scale up the renovations scouted by Honey Bee Network in Gujarat and Govt. of India’s recent initiative; Technopreneurial Promotion Programme, (TEPP) need to be strengthened in this respect.
VI Policies and programmes:
In addition to measures mentioned previously, the following policies and programmes need to be considered for the promotion of FK& Is in India.
- Provide subsidy and other forms of incentives to FK&Is instead of present practice of giving the same to unsustainable modern technologies.
- As the survival of FK&Is depends on the availability of bio-diversity and local resources, link the programme of conservation of later with the promotion of former.
- To compensate the grassroot innovator, evolve an incentive mechanism which include material -specific (royalty), non material -specific (reward or honour), non specific – material (investment to encourage the innovation) and non specific – non material (alter the legal set up to recognise the right and reward for grassroot innovators) incentives as envisaged by Prof Gupta (1 991)
- Reform the teaching curriculum in such a way that the younger generation develop a pride on the indigenous culture, traditional wisdom, folk philosophy and the ‘Third World Treasures’ such as bio-diversity, indigenous knowledge, technology and institutions.
And to end up, two interrelated questions need to be satisfactorily answered. Should FK&Is be confined to dryland agriculture or is there scope for them to penetrate well assured irrigated areas ? And secondly, what role modern science and technology are supposed to play in the development of dryland agriculture ? As Gupta feels that the disadvantaged and poorly articulated farmers in the dry regions are not in a position to place demand for the modern green revolution technologies, development of FK&Is in a way creates demand group of the ‘farmers on flinge’. Though this will help to balance with the demand on modern technologies created by already well endowed articulated farmer groups in the irrigated areas, it should be noted that the demand created by the ‘farmers on fringe’. Though this will help to balance with demand on modern technologies created by the ‘ farmers of fringe’ is qualitatively different from that of the farmers in the irrigated areas.
The diffusion of FT&Is in the dry and fragile regions is limited by the prevailing diversity in agro-ecological and cultural system in the risk prone region. Diversity may not be a constraint for diffusion but for commercialisation it is, as commercial interests will always look for an uniform system for adoption of a new technology to take place in a larger scale. So scaling up of FK&Is depends on the compatibility with the diverse system and hence while thinking about diffusion one has to consider a ‘local’ rather than the ‘global’ scale.
And finally, the role of modern science and technology (MS&Ts) in development of dryland agriculture. Can FK&Is be the total solution or there is a complimentarity between FK&Is and MS&Ts in development of dryland agriculture?. There are several ticklish areas such as epidemic pest & disease attack, severe imbalance in soil structure and consequent soil erosion and so on, rectification of which may require the help of MS&Ts. However, there are always ways and means to fuse and make them to interact these two forms of knowledge systems with mutual respect. Emerging frontiers in agricultural development such as organic farming, watershed development integrated pest and nutrient management participatory technology development, participatory breeding and even biotechnology based on farmers’ knowledge, (Bunders et.al., 1996) will provide ample opportunities for such an interaction and fusion to take place. Success of such an interaction and fusion depends on how men involved with the both the forms of knowledge and technology system perceive and accept the necessity of such an interaction and fusion.
REFERENCES:
- Bunders Joske, Bertus Haverkort and Wim Hiemstra (1996) Bio technology building
on Farmers’ knowledge, Macmillan, London.
- Gupta Anil (1992) Survey of Innovations for sustainable Development: Do methods matter ?, paper presented at International Conference on Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development IIRR, Silang Philippines.
Editor, Hittalagida and Associate Professor of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore Email. hittalu@bgl.vsnl.in., Phone; 85635951/8560267
Associate Editor and Scientist, Division of Ornamental Crops, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore
