K V S Prasad and B Vijayalakshmi
Background
Sustainable Agriculture (SA) became a dominant global concern based on the understanding of negative effects of Green revolution technologies.
Born out of this concern for livelihood improvements and environmental stability is AME. AME started as an innovative training programme in Ecological agriculture in the year 1982 in the Netherlands. After attracting participants from all over the world, in 1986, got relocated in India, focused on training in ecological aspects, establishing a unique identity. With a fresh mandate to focus on, from 1996-2001, AME operated as a Indo Dutch bilateral project, implemented by ETC India. In this period, it focused on propagating LEISA concepts, approaches and practices through participatory methodologies like PRA, PTD and FFS. In the year 2002, AME project became AME Foundation.
Stakeholder group approach
Early in the project phase, in 1996-97, AME begun fostering initiatives for purposeful participation by diverse stakeholders in the development process. AME along with its partner NGOs, based on their own experiences, drew focussed attention of the major stakeholders to the field realities. Specifically, AME sought to mobilize support of these stakeholders to widen the basket of options for a dry land farmer to cope with declining yields and crop losses in a major crop being cultivated by them. Initially, a few interested and enthusiastic individuals came forward as a group, put their minds together, shared their learnings. Then, the group grew in size and diversity to explore joint solutions on a regular basis.
Gradually, these crop based working groups evolved into Stakeholder Concerted Action ( SCA) platforms with a identifiable commonality of purpose. Both the platforms, Groundnut Working Group and Cotton Round Table, facilitated by AME, gained recognition at various levels. The platforms got recognised for their clarity of purpose and pragmatic approach in terms of addressing specific and immediate needs of the farming communities involved in these cropping systems.
The PTD Process and crop based working groups
Based on priortised needs identified with the farmers in a PRA process, AME along with its partners initiated specific crop based Participatory Technology Development (PTD) processes with the farmers. In the process, the farmers are enabled to identify and prioritise major problems in the crop, explore known solutions and possible new options available from formal knowledge systems, conduct trials, evaluate results and adopt suitable alternatives.
During the PTD process, to address the problem, the individuals who are known to be actively working on the problem or similar problems were contacted. The efforts were to identify those who could offer additional options as solutions in dealing with the problems identified. As these options had to be eco-friendly, affordable and locally suitable, the alternatives were not easily forthcoming. The options had to be integrated into PTD trials with the farmers. At the end of the season, AME along with NGO partners facilitated the process of farmers evaluating the results of the trials.
Initially the results were shared in small groups of farmers. Gradually, the forum grew in stature into a large farmer meet. This farmer meet culminated in the sharing of experiences by farmers from three states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu who were working with AME and its NGO partner networks. Farmers shared their experiences, innovations and new problems encountered with reference to the specific cropping system. This event served as a preparatory step to collate farmer’s perspectives and experiences as well as in identifying potential problems.
These results were shared and reviewed during the annual meetings of Crop based working groups, and also potential planning for field action for the next year finalized. The presentations were done by NGOs based on experiences of the farmers in their area. Meanwhile, in the later years, another process for enabling farmer to farmer sharing was initiated. Farmers involved in the PTD trials across operational areas of AME and its partners in three states shared their experiences in farmer meets organized annually. Gradually, farmers representatives started participating in the annual meetings of the working groups. One of the Annual National Groundnut workshops was inaugurated by a woman farmer who shared her views with lot of purpose and clarity.
One of the most crucial aspects was, setting an agenda for this meeting, as it involved diverse stakeholders with vast experience. The participants in the meeting included representatives from farmers, NGOs, academic and research agencies and other development agencies, playing a primary role in either Knowledge Generation or Propagation or Use. To ensure focus, the agenda had to be specific and farmer need centred. With specialists and grass root representatives sharing the platform, patient listening to each other’s experience, was initially difficult. The personal conviction and commitment of the individuals helped and enriched the learning process. With a better understanding, mutual respect for various knowledge systems represented by Farmers, NGOs, academics and researchers increased.
More importantly, a possibility of knowledge being put to use as well as mechanisms for feedback on its utility from the field, made the deliberations pragmatic and action oriented. Farmers chose to try out potential options through PTD trials, specialists prepared themselves to address major problems identified by the farmers. Thus the process enhanced the farmers basket of options for tackling the prevalent problems and the researchers had access to field realities and results for further investigation. Also, financial institutions and input suppliers got involved for extending support to farmers.
AME was involved in forging two SCA platforms – ‘Groundnut Working Group Platform’ and ‘Cotton Round Table’. The following paragraphs highlight and illustrate how Groundnut working group addressed problems, explored joint solutions and influenced institutional policies in creating a more supportive environment for the farmers.
Groundnut Working Group – Problems addressed for joint action
During 1997, farmers working with AME encountered the problem of white grub and leaf miner. AME had little information about how to deal with these pests. The researchers working in this area were approached. The preliminary discussions led to workshops in late 1997 and 1998 organized in collaboration with the National Institute for Extension Management (MANAGE).
In these workshops, representatives included specialists from All India Coordinated Project on Groundnut and White grub, State Agricultural Universities, research agencies like ICRISAT and a broad group of NGOs. Important links were established with the research institutions. The workshops focused on white grub and leaf miner control and forged collaborative efforts. The result was the birth of the ACIAR White grub programme which addressed this problem in detail and came up with potential solutions
Each year, the Groundnut platform through its Annual National Workshops, reviewed the progress made on the recommendations, prepared joint action plans for the next year. The platform explored options for eco-friendly pest and disease management, improved agronomic practices and seed varieties, initiated aflatoxin assessment studies and need based research studies by Universities. Through this platform, around 15 good quality seed varieties were made available and varietal trials were taken up and results shared in these annual workshops. Gradually, AME through this platform, facilitated to increase the scope of the deliberations from specific crops to specific crop based farming systems and from not just problems to perspectives.
One of the issues on which institutional policies were influenced was regarding the availability of Groundnut seed. This was felt necessary as availability of quality groundnut seeds was a major constraint for the dry land farmers and also as it was equally challenging for Universities and State seed supply agencies to supply quality seeds due to the low Seed Multiplication Ratio and Seed Replacement ratio of groundnut.
Changes in institutional policies – a case
Based on the recommendations of the GWG platform, in the year 1999, AME Tiruchi area unit conducted a study on the Groundnut Seed Routes in Tamil Nadu. It was concluded that shortening the production and distribution chain could be a viable strategy for ensuring timely availability of quality seeds to the farmers.
Being part of the stakeholders platform, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, one of the oldest and premier agricultural universities in India, came forward to supply seeds of groundnut varieties for varietal trials at farmers’ fields during Kharif 2000. Later in Kharif 2001, TNAU supplied breeder seeds of VRI 2 for Foundation seed production by farmers.
In 2002, having gained confidence in the abilities of the farmers working with AME, the Department of Oilseeds of TNAU went a step further. Through its then Professor and Head Dr Muralidharan, TNAU, for the first time, came forward to supply Nucleus seeds for breeder seed production (BSP) at farmers field. Generally, only government institutions under the supervision of the breeders do the BSP. Farmers have access only to Foundation seeds for seed production and that too only to a limited level.
The successful BSP with certification by the concerned government agencies, paved way for the institutions to believe that farmers are capable of doing seed production with stringent quality control. Thereafter this continued, only in cases where the concerned government officials took personal interest. In 2004 – 05, it was formally accepted at TNAU to take up BSP at farmers’ field under the supervision of the required certification agency.
During this process, farmers brought up another policy issue regarding the quality of single seeded pods. Since groundnut varietal identification is done with pod characteristics such as pod constriction, presence of beak etc, as per certification norms, single pods are allowed only upto 30%. The farmers in Panikondanpatti village, Pudukottai district raised the issue with the visiting scientists of TNAU regarding single seeds being rejected though the certification agency certified them to be pure seeds. This motivated the scientists and certifying agency to allow the farmers for the first time to use the single pods for further multiplication with due certification. It has not been formally accepted as a norm, since it requires an amendment by the Indian parliament. However use of single pods for further seed production has been accepted subject to certain conditions which include, genuineness of the seed source, acceptance by the certification agency etc..
The above case illustrates that change in policy was possible owing to SCA platforms creating the necessary mechanisms for meaningful interaction, responsiveness of the institution to individual’s foresights and the keenness of the grass root level organizations and the farmers themselves to provide the necessary supportive evidences.
Influencing policies, subtly
The advocacy efforts by AME along with its partners were rather subtle, through SCA platforms rather through active routes. The focus was on facilitating a process of bringing various stakeholders to zoom in on to field realities and join hands to improve the existing situation. AME’s long track record as a resource agency working in the field added credibility to it’s role as a facilitating organization. While the PTD trial results show cased the alternative practices being successfully practiced by farmers, the sharing heightened the importance of necessary support mechanisms which various agencies could and need to offer. The platforms were instrumental in influencing some agencies to bring about a shift in their existing policies to encourage and support the farming communities.
On the other hand, though AME does not claim to have been solely influential in bringing an increased awareness on non chemical agriculture, as one of the primary resource agencies promoting LEISA, it tried to influence policies distantly at national level but more closely and specifically at institutional levels. It can however be mentioned here that the concept of LEISA is getting increasingly mentioned and recognized as possible approach in some policy recommendations at the national level too, for instance, National Action Program to Combat Desertification.
Presently, AME Foundation has intensified its efforts in operationalising and promoting concepts and practices of SA. Recognising that the crux of the problem in dry land farming is exploitative Natural Resource Management and Utilization, is enabling farmers to practice alternative methods of farming and NRM and propagating SA knowledge, practices and systems through partnerships with NGOs and other interested agencies. AME Foundation’s views are increasingly being sought on sustainable Agriculture development during policy deliberations at the State and National levels.
References
Final Report of AME Phase IV (1996-2002), 2002. AME from Project to Organisation: Branching out and getting rooted, AME Foundation, Bangalore.
KVS Prasad, Chitra Suresh and Mans Lanting, A platform for groundnut improvement, LEISA International edition, Vol 15, No. 1/2, Sep 1999, p.72-76
KVS Prasad, Central Programme Officer (D&D), AME Foundation, No. 204, 100 Feet Ring Road, 3rd Phase, Banashankari 2nd Block, 3rd stage, Bangalore – 560 085
Email: amebang@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in
B. Vijayalakshmi, Area Unit Coordinator, AME Foundation, Tiruchi Unit, No. 37, EVR Road, K.K. Nagar,
Tiruchirapalli – 620 021, Tamil Nadu , Email: try_ametry@sancharnet.in
