Section - XXII - The People who are involved now

This section is to give the reader of this Blog a fair idea of the sort of people who are / have been involved with this initiative for the present in Karnataka

• Prof Datye: This group is guided by this pioneer in Water Management and sustainable practices who was with the Central Water Commission and other central government departments

• Mr. Renke: A nomadic tribal in Maharashtra who have inspired all of us by showing that agriculture is sustainable even in a dry place like Solapur

• Dr. Vatsala: An IISc professor who took voluntary retirement from the institute to give technical guidance on this initiative

• Srinath Shastry – a Software Engineer with HP (one of the first volunteers of AID Boston) who negotiated with his company to work part time on alternative / renewable energy as his focus

• Prasanna Saligram is working on the whole issue of Social Mobilisation for this initiative

• Satish Natarajan is a Software Engineer with Wipro earlier but now full time into Organic Farming on Kanakapura Road. He is part of the Organic Growers' cooperative in Karnataka called Sahaja Samrudhdha

• Krishna Prasad, those who know Green Foundation, know him very well. He is also part of "Sahaja Samrudhdha" and helping this initiative with crop management and allied issues

• Srinivas Badiger - A Hydrologist / irrigation expert who works with Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) is helping us out with the water / hydrology / irrigation issues

• CWC - Concern for Working Children is a community based organisation training children on the various vocational activities. They prepare children / youth on artisanship etc.,

• Ms. Asha Dinesh and Mr. Dinesh - They are from the Ashraya Hasta Trust who have been having the patience to support the processes since the past 2-3 years.

• Mr. Ramamurthy of the Paranga Charitable Trust has been supporting us with financial logistics. He has a school called Paranga High School in Torepalya which we are hoping to use as a place to try out the Education at Workplace agenda of this initiative

• Kamesh Reddy and Anmol Sethy, volunteers of AID Bangalore have recently got initiated into this initiative and have shown interest to continue to work part time on this. They would be concentrating on creation of database, multimedia and other ICT support to this initiative

Section - XXI - Empowerment in Gram Sabha through Entitlements and the way out of the Crisis of Rural Economy

EMPOWERING THE GRAM SABHAS THROUGH ENTITLEMENTS

There is enough and more talk about the need to promote the decentralised Gram Swaraj Concept through the strengthening of the Panchayat Raj Institutions. There is also lots of action / campaign by various organisations to mobilise communities towards empowerment. But what is not understood is that the community would not come forward to realise their Rights till there is sufficient incentive for them to take such an action. So no amount of Philosophical preparation of the people towards their Rights would make them demand their Rights. Only when there is sufficient sense of belonging, ownership etc., to the processes will the community be interested in the same. So if there were to be entitlements created for these communities to enable them to demand more services from the Gram Sabhas ( in a bottom-up approach) will the people come to the Gram Sabha to demand their Rights.

For some organisations which are mobilising communities on the twin issues of NREGA and RTI, this could be a very good case of value addition with the community itself demanding these at the Gram Sabhas. One the other hand there is one more segment of organisations which would want to start some action on NREGA but not getting some starting points. Even for such scenaios if in the first year they are able to do the 0.5 acre and ensure the landless entitlements then they dont need to do any work in empowering them only they need to lead the people to the Gram Sabhas and they would start demanding the same from the Panchayats

THE WAY OUT OF THE CRISIS OF RURAL ECONOMY

The present crisis of the rural economy is not simply a crisis of agriculture. It is also an energy and infrastructure crisis. The farmers are unhappy about the performance of high yielding varieties and are concerned about degrading soils (due to fertilizers), pest and pesticides, prices of agricultural produce, crisis of debt & last but not the least about unavailability of energy on demand. The labour is also not available when required because either they are migrating in the search of work or co-opted in the half heartedly implemented employment guarantee schemes. The other possibilities of generating incomes from rural industries are also very bleak, as they have not gone beyond conventional agro and forest product processing and handicrafts. The development of infrastructure is slowed down because of the cost escalation of energy intensive construction techniques requiring cement & steel & heavy machinery. The debt-ridden State is facing resource crunch while private investment is not forthcoming for rural infrastructure and irrigation since the charges they would demand (for rates of return expected by them) are beyond the paying capacity of the farmers & the rural community.

What we have to look for are the ways in which agriculture (& diversified biomass production as an input for infrastructure, chemicals & energy) & rural industry can be integrated at the household as well as the group level.

Crop diversification is necessary along with shift to low external input and limited irrigation practices. This will call for dispersal of irrigation facilities and as a result the irrigation demand will be small and widely distributed. To meet such demands, energy from renewable sources will be more appropriate.

It is also necessary to avail of advances in technology to produce chemicals from biomass and provide inputs for infrastructure development. Wood-bamboo fiber composites have good potential to use local labour and solar thermal energy for processing.

Recycling wastes to save cement can generate incomes, for this purpose the process energy can be renewable. The dispersal of industry calls for an emphasis on use of renewable resources biomass (bio-fuels, wood-bamboo fibers) and energy in various forms (i.e. solar thermal, wind, hydro).

For dispersal for irrigation facilities & dispersal of industry, we can no longer depend on electricity produced in mega plants and distributed through the grid to serve the distributed power needs with low load factors for irrigation and small industry needs. We cannot meet these needs from petroleum fuels because of the end of the era of cheap oil and gas. The price rise in petroleum fuels makes the diesel and gas unaffordable to the small and marginal farmers in areas poorly endowed with regard to water for irrigation. The shift to renewable has also become obligatory because of the political pressure on the subsidies for diesel and gas that are creating an unbearable burden on national economy.

The key issue that needs to be addressed is to make energy available and affordable to rural & small town communities. Priority should be given to the needs of small farmers, small industry, and unorganized workers as also to income generation through renewable energy production and utilisation. This can happen only when there is participation of this section of society in the policymaking process regarding promotion of biomass based energy production.

Incomes can be generated for the poor in rural areas through entitlements to biomass produced on lands with irrigation facilities developed at public costs. Further, locally produced solar-thermal energy can be used for value added processing in small, dispersed industries. Viability of these income-generating activities can be enhanced by heat used in co-generation to provide process heat for recycling wastes and biomass processing.

In order to sustain the income generation, integration is required of primary production of biomass and use of renewable energy produced locally for processing. The challenge is to use employment assistance and credit concessions (justified on ecological considerations) to reduce the liability for capital costs recovery as well as operating costs. In order to meet this challenge, priority should be given in rural development programme to building of the local bio-resource base. Diversification is also necessary to achieve ecological balance by establishing shallow, medium, as well as deep-rooted vegetation. For wasteland developed at public costs, priority should be given to the choice of species for annuals and perennial trees having high-energy value directly or through value added processing.

It is necessary to avail of advances in technology to make the small-dispersed industries competitive in the rural and urban market. A wide range of products of small industries can compete with the products of large centralized fossil energy based industries. Engineering materials and chemicals using energy saving inputs such as biomass, recycled wastes, and local minerals are always in demand and in a growth economy they have no hazard of market saturation

Optimization of the product mix for energy production from various renewable sources is necessary to reduce the cost of energy generation and upgrade the quality of service for serving various end uses. By developing solar, thermal, wind, small hydro energy sources & their integration with biomass energy should be possible to provide energy to users "on demand" in the desired form i.e. thermal, mechanical, or electrical.

The first step in the restructuring of the energy system is estimation of energy production potential of various renewable resources. This should be followed by need assessment for marginal sections of the rural, small town communities. This will facilitate demand management and optimization of the energy mix from the various sources and thereby matching energy need and availability for everybody including the poor and deprived.

It is essential to motivate energy users and providers to build capability for implementing programs of technology upgradation. Incentives for demand management can be created through differential pricing of energy services and products of process industry. Reorientation of the system of financing through combination of employment assistance commercial and concessional credit also is necessary. The concurrently awareness should be created of prospects of accelerated growth through the necessary restructuring of the development administration and financial intuitions ultimate objective is to make decentralizations work by building capacities to take informed decision at all levels with regarding pricing & terms of capital cost recovery.

Section - XX - The Leasing Company

Leasing Company

By Leasing Company we mean any Organisation (AID and similar Non-Profit organisations) which would step in as a Financier for the various components of the intervention. The Many roles envisaged for this is as follows:

1. For the initial 0.5 Acre land not all farmers might be ready to give it for free, so in order to ensure that the entitlements are assured for the landless, the Leasing Company would negotiate with the farmers. This anyways keep happening in the villages on a regular basis. There could be 2 models either the Company gives leases out this portion of the land ( typically Rs. 2000 per year) and hands it over to the 5 women or make a member of the farmer family one of the 5 people working on the 0.5 acre land.

2. A triangular Arrangement has to be made in which the Leasing company would be a party alongwith farmers and the landless with clear cut details of the entitlements, water sharing etc.,

3. The Leasing Company stands as one of the parties in the Gram Sabha meetings where they would bring in the question of concessional credits to the farmers and negotiate with the Panchayats (MOUs) for the common lands and water sources

4. The Leasing Company has to be the one to give credits for irrigational facilities either as a low interest rate finance or as a zero-interest financing through revolving fund

5. Similarly credits for the Bio-Energy plants etc.,

6. Finally, the Leasing Company acts as a means of Social Control for the evolution of the Collective with a series of Carrot and Stick measures as enumerated in the various sections

Section - XIX - The Budget for the Intervention

A Typical Budget for the Intervention would be as follows (3 years):

Please note the following:

1. The overall coordinator’s cost is divided over more than one place of intervention (Minimum as of now would be 4. The places are: Magadi, Kolar, Chitradurga and Raichur Districts). This overall coordinator would stay at one of these districts for about 2 months to establish the social process, identifying good SHG women, local leadership, local coordinator, identifying the first ½ acre of land, negotiation with the panchayats etc., He would be somewhat the fulcrum who would draw upon the resource persons for social mobilization, irrigation, water balance study, crop management etc.,

2. The item lines (a) and (b) would be subject to change depending on the local panchayat’s response. If the panchayat responds to give us the complete EGA then the amount would drastically change. Districts where there is no NREGA if we get a favourable panchayat then the item lines (a) and (b) would change. For eg. in Kolar because of the Local MLA taking interest we don’t need to worry about the EGA components in (a) and (b) wheras in Magadi we still don’t know the Panchayat’s response

3. Please note that item line (d) is totally as a credit for irrigation which would be used as a revolving fund for the subsequent neighbourhood units

4. Please note that the assistance offered by us to the farmers in the years 2 & 3 is ½ the cost and the rest half is borne by the farmers in a service agreement with the landless women

5. The resource persons’ pool would be for the travel of best practitioners. Again this is considered for all the possible 4 places as of now.

Section - XVIII - What Next?

This section is divided into 2 parts

What next at Magadi?

What next overall in terms of expanding this to other places?

What next at Magadi?

Our experimental plots have caught the attention of the local farmer community in MGHalli. Having witnessed the higher productivity and other advantages of Renke’s method of soil preparation, about 21 farmers have come forward to adapt this method in their farms on atleast 1 gunta land to start with (out of their own resources). The idea now is to verify the Microplanning data as well and then move towards forming a collective.

All the necessary institutional arrangements have to be tried out and put in place to evolve a replicable and scalable institutional structure for the initiative to go on. We had been toying with the idea of forming a local co-operative with all the stakeholders themselves being part of it to take care of the various MOUs etc., But this angle is still being worked out and the final work is not yet heard

Meanwhile, one Ms. Aparna, Bangalore, has shown interest in marketing these fully organic vegetables. She has already started and has been buying the vegetables produced from our plots (on a weekly basis, once in a week right now) and has been giving reasonable prices to the growers. If Ravi and his team can organize varieties, quantity and timing of the crops to give a continuous supply to suit the demand, it can generate a modest income to the workers on the field.

In order to try out mainstreaming we have already started talking to the Panchayats to allocate us the food-for-work component of the program from Javahar Rozgar Yojana or any other for further expansion to the other plots in MG Halli. Recently Ravi (and Prasanna) has approached the local village Panchayat seeking financial support from them to expand the process in the village. The panchayat members have shown interest, have even visited the experimental plots. A video screening of the intervention was done at the Panchayat General Body Meeting. After the screening the Panchayat by voice vote passed a resolution to take this up in the action plan for coming financial year of 2006-2007. Further processes are on

Ravi and Prasanna have also been talking to the women’s self help groups and some interested youth in the village.

Unfortunately, a similar spreading into the village neighbourhood has not happened at Thorepalya. The other proposed agenda of involving youth or school children in our activities there by training them on scientific methods of sustainable farming has not been very successful either. Frequent absenting of the chosen children made the valuable time of volunteers of our team visiting all the way from Bangalore not justifiable. Also, since the nature of activity was such that could not be well programmed time-wise, instead was more dependent on the crop growth stages, it was difficult to engage the children on a continuous basis to retain their interest or participation.

Also efforts would be to consolidate now and repeat the results to establish consistency in the results so that we have something more concrete to take forward.

What next overall in terms of expanding this to other places?

The Chinatamani Development

Meanwhile there has been one more encouraging development. We had presented this program of ours to the Chitamani MLA Dr. Sudhakar Reddy, a very progressive MLA. We discussed about this program and then we were taken to a neighbouring village of Chintamani called as kaavalugaanahalli. In this village we had a preliminary discussion. From this discussion the following positive things have emerged

a) A farmer by name Srinivas has come forward to offer his plot for the start of the work there

b) There seems to be reasonable irrigation sources which could be explored

c) The local panchayat has agreed to support the 'Food-for-Work' component of the program. In fact in a subsequent meeting 2-3 more Ward members of the Gram Panchayat were present and they also wanted to take it to their villages

d) But only thing lacking there is the social process as there is not even a Self-Help Group in that village and we are now thinking of sending Ravi from Motaganahalli for about 2 days a week to do some handholding till the time a local social process is started

Some of the steps as of now thought of for Kolar is

i) Initial 20 Guntha plot with 5 women

ii) We could also start the Sharma model for the rest of the 2 ½ acres of the 3 acre plot identified

iii) We could also initiate the bio-energy plantations in the common lands

iv) Saving in the irrigation cost recovery to be shown as a pilot to the MLA

The Other places

We have initiated dialogue with some of the Community Based Organisations (CBO's) in districts which have NREGA already there. Districts like Raichur and Anantpur (Timbaktu) where there is already some struggles by these organisations to make NREGA work. So as a Value addition to these processes and as a natural next step to this struggle we have been suggesting this initiative to be taken up by them. Most of the social instruments are in place at these places like SHG's, Organic farming expertise etc., There have been some positive feedback by them. We need to evolve some concrete steps now for the same

At the same time I have a 6 acre plot in Maralagondala near Magadi where I would want to replicate Sharma model and similarly Vatsala has about 6 acres of land on Kanakapura Road. We are waiting for the core team to evolve and then we would have to raise funds for the same to be able to take up this work there.

The Evolution of a Core Team to take this forward

We are increasingly moving towards formation of a core team of members who would take this initiative forward. So in that direction we have started identifying the various resource people who have been part of the efforts off and on. We had one preliminary meeting of all such people and discussed in detail of the various components involved and also the possible people who could be involved (mentioned in the brackets)

a) A triangular Arrangement has to be made between the Leasing company ( AID or similar organizations), farmers and the landless

b) 4 kinds of Management has to be done

i) Food security and Livelihood
ii) Bio Energy ( Largely Perennials)
iii) Fodder Management ( with minimal intervention)
iv) Commercial crops

c) Ecosystem potential assessment (quick water availability assessment) to inform the Gram Sabha (NU). This has to be done with the help of hydrological data etc., (Mr. Srinivas Badiger)

d) Entitlements, Min. water entitlement, allocations and rights of Produce to be presented to the NU and other social instruments like the Self Help Groups, Panchayats etc.,(Prasanna)

e) Irrigation structures. Augmentation and efficiency of the irrigation per se (Vatsala alongwith a group of technicians typically diploma holders or from CWC etc., )

f) Organic Crop Management – Livestock, Green cover, fertility, grasslands, poultry etc., (Satish, Krishna Prasad and other friends of Sahaja Samruddha)

g) Energy and Artisanship (Srinath Shastry and CWC alongwith a core technician team which will get trained at the Technical Center put up by Datye at Karjat near Mumbai. There is an 8 acre plot of one of the friends of Datye and he has offered to give his land for this training center.

h) Technical Backup to replicate Sharma and other techniques reg soil / water nutrients (Top rate team by Datye)

i) One person yet to be identified who is good in the SHG formation and also can pick up the Agri techniques to coordinate all the plots at Karnataka level. This person is increasingly becoming crucial for us as this person would be the only person who would be completely full time with no conflicting priorities and would be thinking, eating, sleeping about this initiative

Section - XVII - The Magadi Intervention near Bangalore

After the conceptual Framework explained in the previous sections, it is time to move out to actually what has been done till now. So this brings us to the actual work that has happened in Magadi last year in the direction of the framework explained.

The Actual work at Magadi

1. We had taken 3 experimental plots in Magadi Taluk of Bangalore Rural District. The 3 plots were

Motaganahalli - 1 plot of 20 guntas (1/2 an acre)
Cottonpalya - 1 plot of 20 guntas
Torepalya - 1 plot of 20 guntas

2. We started working on these 3 plots after negotiating with the farmers to partake 20 guntas of land

3. Ideally for this intervention to have come up to the potential, we should have started the work by Feb 2005. Unfortunately by the time we streamlined all the activities last year it was beyond May 2005 and we did not get enough time to prepare the soil etc for all the 20 guntas of land. So we had a restricted intervention.

4. The first year of intervention has given some phenomenal results.

Report of the work in Magadi (Aug-2005-Feb-2006)

As stated in the earlier sections experimental plots were prepared according to Mr. Renke’s method in all the 3 farms (4 guntas in Thorepalya, ~2.5 guntas in MG halli and ~3.75 guntas in K.Palya. The plots were ready for raising crops with well humified compost by Aug-Sept 2005. Unfortunately, the unusually heavy rains this year extending right upto Oct-Nov, never allowed any possible or suitable time for plouging or sowing. Earlier also, the rains were quite untimely, i.e., very much delayed until late july which also disturbed the cropping to some extent.

Crops raised

Ragi was grown in about 16 guntas in MGhalli and in 15 guntas in KPalya. The crop was started in mid Aug. But the crop was totally washed out in K.Palya as there was heavy rain immediately after transplanting. (Attempt was made to sow a second time, but never came up due to heavy rains there after). The crop grew very well in MGHalli (luckily started a week before the rains).

Two options of nutrient inputs were tried for Ragi. Initially 120 kg of FYM was used per gunta during ploughing for the entire land. Subsequently, as option 1, 2kg/ gunta urea was supplied, as this is the normal practice adapted by farmers. 2 kgs of urea was administered in split dosages, 1 kg initially added to the soil and remaining 1 kg as foliar spray once a week, 4 times (to minimize wastage of urea and also soil pollution). As option 2, 30 kgs/gunta of vermicompost was used instead of urea.

Vegetable crops were grown in all the specially prepared (Renke method) plots. Greens (Methi, Dantu, Palak), raddish, and bottle gourd were the chosen varieties. For comparison, the same crops were also grown in control plots (without the special Renke input but with limited or normal inputs). Sowing was done on 15th Nov. in MGHalli and on 6th Dec. in Thorepalya and K.Palya.

For the control plots, 120 kgs/gunta of FYM was used. Only in Thorepalya, 3 different additional control plots were tried for Radish, one with 80kg and one with 120 kgs of vermicomopost per gunta, and the other with 150 kgs of FYM.

For the Renke plots, as reported earlier, the input in the form of compost is 1.2 T of dry biomass. In addition 500kg/gunta of FYM has been used. (This was on the advise of Mr. Renke, as an one-time-input initially not to take chance in case the compost is not fully digested since the objective was to demonstrate the high productivity with organic inputs alone).

In ThorePalya, banana saplings (brought from Mr Renke’s farm) had been planted in 1 gunta of compost-prepared land in July-2005 itself. Mr.Renke, when he visited the farm about 3 weeks later, was not happy with the level of growth and had asked us to discontinue the crop. Accordingly, it was planned to replace this area also with some vegetable crop but because of the heavy rains, the vegetable sowing could not be done till December by which time the banana had grown very well. We didn’t feel like removing them. The yield from this is yet to be seen.

Observed productivity

The growth in the experimental plots was exceptionally good in Thorepalya and MGHalli. Only in K.Palya it was not uniformly good as the composted area was quite disturbed by the overflowing stream throwing lot of sand and washing off the compost. The difference between the special Renke plots and the control plots was also markedly visible. (Table showing all the data will be attached).

Just to note as example, 310.5 kg of radish (fresh wt, total biomass including green leaves) was harvested from 1 gunta in Thorepalya. This is about 45-55 days crop. A very conservative extrapolation—4 crops in a year, 1200kg/yr—48T/acre/yr (of total biomass). Total biomass to radish ratio was measured to be about 3:2. This means about 32T of salable Raddish per year per acre.

OR, the other way, 310.5 kg/gunta in 50 days --- 6.2kg/day --- with a conservative 10% of dry matter ---- 0.62 kg dry matter production per day per gunta. (Best yard stick in vegetable growing being Mr. Sharma from Yavatmal, who is a very successful organic farmer growing vegetables on 30 acres of land for more than 5-6 years, his average is 20T of salable vegetables/acre/year. Considering 240 days of effective growth days in a year, and about 40% useful vegetables---50T of total biomass/acre/240 days, which means 5.2 kg/gunta /day. Considering again 10% as the dry matter, 0.5-0.6 kg dry matter production/day/gunta). To give a comparative picture of the compost plot and the control plot, 6 plants weighed 823 gms in Compost Area and 368 gms in Control Area at the same number of growth days.

The total yield of Methi was 47.5 kgs in 1 gunta (actual crop area is 680sft leaving of the walking paths etc). The growth was not uniformly good in all the beds. (there was shadow of trees on one side). The best growth was 3.43 kgs in a bed of 8’X3.5’ = 28 sft area. (This being a 30 days crop, rough extrapolation would give 123kg/gunta per crop or about 28T/acre/6 crops in a year. Considering about 30% of walking path etc and only 70% actual crop area, this would be about 21T/acre/year. In MGHalli, the yield of Methi was 5.12kg from 2X10’X4’= 80sft and another variety of greens was 7.18kgs again from 80sft.

Only in MGHalli about 80 kg of gourd has been harvested till the time this report was written. But the comparison between compost area and the control area is very clearly seen here. While already 80 kg of gourd has been harvested from the compost area, the fruits have just started appearing after flowering in the control area. Initial measurements during the early growth days also had shown this difference clearly. The growth after 38 days in the control area was not even 40% as that of in the compost area (weight of 3 plants in the control area was 191.8gms as against 549 gms in the compost area). The same was observed even with Radish crop. The control area reached harvest stage about 2 weeks slower than the compost area.

The ragi crop had grown very well (farmers in the neighbourhood were all appreciating). Heavy rains towards the harvest period affected the yield. The final yield was 223kg of Ragi from the 8 guntas of vermicompost area (~ 10 quitals/acre) and 165 kg from 8 guntas of control (urea) area. Initial growth measurements had shown a weight of 423gms/4 plants in vermic area as against 216.5 gms in urea plot after 33 days of growth. (With a plant spacing of 1’X1’ this means 34X34 plants in a gunta, -- 423.5X34X34/4/ 33 days--- 3.51kg/day/gunta growth. Considering about 20% dry matter --- 0.7 kg/day/gunta dry matter production. The grain to husk ratio was also better in the case of vermicompost. (198/101 gms in vermic. Area and 182/116 mgs in urea plot). The total plant wt to the top thene ratio was 1332/350 gms and 1437/330 gms in the two cases. The weight of ragi grains per unit volume was also better in case of vermicompost plot (1115gms/seru and 985gms/seru)

The Social Mobilisation

The Social Mobilisation which is a very important component of this intervention. Actually the intervention started about 3 yrs back but due to lack of social mobilisation and personnel problems we were not able to make any head way. Also it took all of us sometime to understand the overall picture. One important development was the identification of Ravi Kumar of Motaganahalli. Thanks to ICRA and Gayathri we were able to identify a community leader who was involved in various developmental activities in MGhalli. So this intervention caught the imagination of the whole village once we started it as Ravi is being watched closely by the village

Microplanning

A detailed Microplanning on the Natural Resources and its management was done in the second year of the intervention once people were able to see these results and could tally the survey to the field work we have been doing in the village. As I say vry often, a Village survey is the most abused instrument in the communities with all and sundry doing surveys for everything. So a Survey is always a bad idea to start with and thats why we started this Microplanning activity in the second year when we were able to show some results. Actually even this was done in a particpative way. The Local Youth group ( again who are behind Ravi in his community development activities) were given an orientation of the whole intervention and they were made to understand as to where all these would fit-in in the overall context of the intervention and then given a small training on how to go about doing the Microplanning. The Microplanning data so collected has thrown some important observations ( pls. visit this section for more details on this).

Documentation

A detailed documentation has been done on the various inputs and outputs. This would be sent to interested people on request.

A video recording of the initiative has also be done which can be sent in a CD form to the interested people

The photographs of the intervention taken by many people would be put it in this section shortly. Some of them are uploaded on the AID photogallery by Bisu. They would soon be available here

Section - XVI - What is in it for the Land-holding Farmer?

What is in it for the Farmers?

Naturally we would all be confronted with the question that why should the farmers be part of this Collective? What is in it for the farmers to become part of this? What is the guarantee that they would still stick on as a collective and not go back to their exploitative ways. The Answer lies in a mixture of carrot and stick that is part of this initiative

1. For 20 resource poor households it is necessary to come to an understanding with land owning farmers having irrigation access regarding land use and water allocation. They are expected to allocate 9 Ha of land for food grains & pulse production, in other words they diversify the farming system by shifting from a part of the area presently used for growing cash crops. As an incentive to these farmers in the procurement for PDS (Public Distribution System) there would be a premium of Rs.4 /Kg for local water efficient cereals. This is subject to the farmers adopting sustainable practices with low external inputs and limited irrigation (LEISA). The land owning farmers would not be in the PDS coverage for food grains and they may procure the food grain of their choice or produce it themselves.

In order to achieve viability, the sustainable farming system should have the following features:
· The market prices for pulses are generally quite attractive for the farmers and therefore price support is not needed.
· The motivation would come from availability of irrigation on demand and a reliable energy service at affordable tariff.
· Priority allocation of water and entitlements for concessional credit and assistance for an area of 2.5 acre for fully organic vegetable production. The break-up of this area would be:
· 0.5-acre land to grow organic vegetables obtained on long-term lease (from common property or a leasing institution set up by govt. or land provided by sympathisers). This land will be managed by the Shrama Seva Kendra ( 5 women group) and made available with rights to the produce for a 5 women spearheading group. The lease rent and the rate of irrigation cost recovery should be reasonable and affordable to the women.
· 2-acre land managed through service agreement with the women's group by the landowners willing to switch over to fully growing organic vegetables.

There would be some flexibility in the above break up of 2.5 acres. The area with the Shrama Seva Kendra can be larger and farmers already fully organic vegetables may come to service agreement with the women's group.

2. The next benefits to land owning farmers from above arrangements would be increased productivity with reduced chemical input cost.

3. They would also avail of the benefit of employment assistance (EGA) for some of the on farm activities necessary for land development, provision of organic inputs. This category of assistance is essential to overcome the losses during the shift to sustainable and diversified farming system from prevailing input and water intensive practices.

4. Since the farmers are not credit-worthy but SHG's are the most credit worthy institute, the 20 women group which are part of the SHG's will bring in the credit for the Protective Irrigation to the farmer and their cost recovery is already explained in the earlier sections

5. They would also get the advantage of the Renewable energy produced as part of the collective to reduce their dependence on the irregular grid power supply


The Stick would be that if the Farmers resort back to their exploitative ways by denying the entitlements of the produce ( as they might argue that the labour cost has anyways come from EGA which is anyways public money) they would stand to lose heavily from the lack of irrigation, better yields and more than anything the skilled labour that is coming to them at a concessional price for them to convert to organic

A clear indication of a preliminary assessment is that the farmers stand to gain substantially through the shift to diversified cropping and organic vegetable production and LEISA. Monopoly procurement price of cotton, various input related subsidies unmetered heavily subsidized electricity and area based irrigation tariff have failed to alleviate the farmers' distress. In the proposed approach the focus is on cost effective use of employment under NREGA terms along with credit concessions justified on ecological considerations. In the following paragraph details are furnished regarding assistance and credit and their impact on employment and income generation. Enhancement of productivity and water use efficiency concurrently with saving of input cost. It can also be seen that the credit concession and additional employment assistance would very well be balanced by the social acceptance (by the poor as well as land owners) of withdrawal of subsidies for external inputs, irrigation, energy

Section - XV - The Energy Self Sufficiency

This section is still incomplete with still lot of inconsistencies but still should be able to give the reader a fair idea of what is being proposed even though the numbers arent tallying.

Please revisit this section once again later.

BUILDING THE BIO RESOURC BASE

The results of an optimization exercise for water efficient and highly productive and diversified bio-energy system using limited irrigation are presented below. The benefits with regard to sustainable energy production in terms of coal replacement value of the biomass are evident. The mono cropping of oil seeds (e.g. jatropha) for bio-diesel production currently being promoted comes out in poor light as compared to the diversified system. An added benefit is matching of availability of biomass and needs of bio-energy to provide for various end uses of the community.

This diversified system can very well be developed and managed by the group of 20 resource poor households. Obviously they can be motivated to build the bio-resource base and achieve high levels of sustainable productivity if their livelihood security is created by working on the 10 ha area to achieve food security and balanced nutrition. A required incentive would be entitlement to the bio-energy produce on 1ha of biogas area and 3ha of non-timber forestry area. In addition they need to be paid a fair amount for maintenance and protection of the plantations. In addition long-term pricing agreement would be needed for the wood bamboo fibers to ensure stability of supply at fair prices of inputs for the process industry which may also be managed by members of 20 resource poor households.

Legend:

For Sweet Sorghum it is 60000 Kg. Evidently diversification is much more productive

* For producing 1KWh = 0.4 Kg of diesel is required & 1 Kg. of coal.

**If value addition by processing is considered 1 Kg wood can replace 2/3rd Kg of steel & bamboo can replace 1 Kg steel. 3 Kg of Coal is consumed to produce 1 Kg. of steel. Therefore value addition for bamboo is 96000 Kg & for steel is 20000 Kg. Total value additions would be 116000 Kg

@ Total coal replacement after value added processing 214000 Kg.

Above assessments are conservative. For local needs of stationary engines only technology development need is containers is for transporting biogas. Much of the processing of bamboo/Wood can be done locally. Contribution of biogas slurry & for upgrading compost quality resulting fertilizer saving & CO2 mitigation are not considered in the energy value assessment. Local liquid fuel demands in excess of production can be met from income generation realised by sale of wood /bamboo which are easily transportable

Energy needs and availability

Unless energy pricing ensures that capital costs are recovered, funds required for accelerating growth of the energy sector cannot be mobilized. Affordability of energy to the user is another important consideration. Specifically this is a critical factor with regard to pumping energy required to provide water for food security and achieving desired productivity level of diversified agriculture.

For renewable energy system recovery of capital costs is a major factor influencing the tariff. The issue of affordability can not be addressed without compromising capital cost recovery criteria through differential pricing of renewable energy. There are several process energy applications where solar process heat can very well be priced at rates comparable to the current price of heat from low-grade fuel such as coal. In some cases it can even be charged at rates comparable to process heat from gas without loosing the cost advantage for the products using solar process heat for their manufacture.

With the proposed system of financing of artisanal enterprises i.e. equated installment of 5% of the capital cost per year, the capital recovery charge for solar process heat works out to only Rs 0.4 /Mcal (i.e. 1000 Kcal). As against this present break-even price for heat from low-grade coal is about Re 1.2 /Mcal. This can generate sufficient surplus to meet the capital cost recovery liability for biogas plant including preprocessing equipment, digester and energy required for preprocessing of the inputs and even a part of transportation cost.

With this approach the pumping energy charge per cubic meter can be established at a flat affordable rate comparable to the grid electricity charge for an average lift of say 18 meter.

For the food security module of 10 ha the water allocation is 3,600 m3 /ha

The pumping energy required is 360 Kwh. This can be rounded off to 400 Kwh

The pumping energy charge at the grid tariff of Rs 3 /Kwh/ha works out to Rs 1200 for the food security agro-diversity module.

The Biogas Input needed for generating 1 KW is 0.5 Kg. So for generating 400KW biogas consumption of 200 Kg for a portable genset (at 0.5 Kg /Kwh) is needed and the biogas price will have to be limited to Rs 6 /Kg if it has to be matched to the Grid Tariff

It is proposed that the lease rent for biogas equipment and land and capital recovery for irrigation investment charges should be established at a level that the break-even price of biogas is Rs 6 /Kg methane equivalent energy. This implies that in addition the labour cost of cultivation is fully met from EGA. The break up of capital cost recovery (mainly lease rent) for the various cost components mentioned above would be as under.

Irrigation investment Rs 40,000 @ 5% Rs 2,000
Biogas plant and preprocessing equipment Rs 120,000 @ 5% Rs 6,000
Capital recovery for portable genset Rs 20,000 @ 10% Rs 2,000

So a total of Rs. 10000
-------------------
Total recovery per hectare per year for producing 1600 Kg methane equivalent x Rs 6/Kg, say Rs 10,000

Any excess over the capital cost recovery liabilities mentioned above has to be met by energy and infrastructure enterprise from the surpluses generated in the process industry. This can very well be conditionality for the energy infrastructure enterprise to get entitlement to the credit concession and employment generation. This aspect is dealt with in the section on institutional structure.

With the above approach the off-grid energy users would not suffer any disadvantage as compared to the grid-connected users. However this will be applicable to the collective of farmers having access to irrigation, dry land small farmers and resource poor (landless and marginal farmers) who work in a partnership mode.

Section - XIV - The Irrigation and the Cost recovery of Irrigation through Credit

Capital cost recovery for irrigation

The investment needs for irrigation are consider for various options. Labour costs are excluded since they can be met from EGA.

Let us first consider Irrigation for three crops of intensive vegetable cultivation in 1 ha area. It is assumed that grid connection is available & thus the energy requirements are met. A lined pond of 150 m3 capacity & delivery pipes would be required. 5mm/day water requirement is considered. So the pond can store 15mm of water. The cost of lining material at 50 Rs m3 works out to be Rs.75000.Thus the cost of pond & delivery pipes together would be around Rs.1 lakh or so excluding earthwork costs, which are covered by EGAssistance

Let us consider another case with limited water. Due to limited water, only two crops would be possible & the area requirement of land would be 1.5 & water= 3000m3/ Ha. In this case an unlined pond (4500m3 Capacity) & a lined pond (150m3 capacity) would be required. The water seeping from unlined pond will be collected through intercepted drains & shallow wells & there after filled in lined ponds The cost of unlined pond would be (4500m3XRs30/m3) =Rs 135000 to be covered under EG assistance. In this system lined pond and delivery system would cost around 1 lakh & in addition there will be costs of pumps, drains, wells & pipes as required. The conservative estimate for total cost can be within Rs 2 lakhs. The annual equated installment is taken at 5% of the capital & the corresponding cost recovery works of to Rs.10000 / year for a plot of 1/1.5 Ha (depending on the water availability) amounts to 100 Rs/ guntha/ year for a plot producing 500kg of salable vegetable / year. While estimating net income this liability is taken into consideration e.g. 2000/year for the 5 women group producing 10 t / year & farmers following Sharma's technique (producing 20 T / year) would have to pay Rs 4000 / year.

For the food grain and pulses, the lined pond capacity can be reduced to 60m3 / ha (the demands are staggered & pump capacity will also be reduced so also the investment for pipe line etc can also be reduced since the distance from the check dam or tank taken as Rs 1lakh/ ha to the line ponds will be shorter (the field for growing pulses an grains are of farmers having access to water. The investment excluding labour cost covered by EGA can be taken as Rs 40000/ Ha for pipes, pumps, lining etc.

The cost recovery work out to 2000 Rs/year/ha!!!!

a) Range of investment for irrigation ----Rs 40000 to Rs 60000/ha (Average cost/ha for the diversified production system which mainly consists of forestry & mixed crop with limited Irrigation.

b) For intensive vegetable cultivation three crops /year this cost would 1-1.5 lakhs/ha Labour component Rs 20000/ ha from EGA for which there is no capital cost recovery. For the balance Rs 20000 to Rs 40000,financed on concessional terms.i.e., 6% equated annual installment (recovery of interest and principal) This is about half of present terms for 15 years mortgage finance for home loans.

The annual liability of Rs 2000 /year for capital cost recovery can be met from biomass . For average rate of wood bamboo @ Rs.3.5 / kg. The women have to grow only 800 Kg / Ha / Year in order that the irrigation finance is recovered. But an average output of Wood bamboo/ Ha / year is 7.5 tons!!! The viability of irrigation financing is thus confirmed.

Section - XIII - The labour calculations

Additional employment assistance for on farm activities

In order to facilitate the transition to LEISA and organic vegetable production on farm, work based on local labour and material is required for a period of 2-3 years. This consists mainly of regeneration of soil, Land shaping (contours & bunds), Planting Trees on bunds establishing, Rows of shrubs (alley cropping) in a wider area.

These set of activities are in fact are the asset building processes. (In principle NREG act is focused on creating permanent assets) These set of activities are not covered in the present NREG Act provisions.

The assistance can be withdrawn when the desired level of productivity and water use efficiency is achieved and the vegetation is established. The assistance of this category is also needed for the land entitled to the women for growing perennial fruit trees (4-6 gunthas per woman).




This is equivalent of 20 women whose additional EGA works out to 20 x 60 x 100 days for 2 years period i.e. Rs 240,000.

The above expenditure has a very favourable benefit cost ratio. The income generation (as explained later is Rs 150,000 per year) realised mainly from enhancement of productivity of degraded land and water use efficiency for limited irrigation in poorly endowed rainfed areas.

Effect: The capital output ratio is as good as 2:1 for the employment assistance to resource poor households for whom it is generally believed that the wages do not generate incomes sufficient to justify the expenditure.

Some Inconsistencies

There are some inconsistencies still in this data.

1. The Labour calculations for the 1.2 Ha of the fruit trees is taken into account but does not come under the initial 10 Ha of land

2. The Labour calculations for the 15 Ha Bio-energy / Bio-fuel area is not considered which would extend the above calculations for another 2-3 years

Section - XII - The Water calculations

The Water Calculation:

Protective Irrigation: Protective irrigation is used when the rains are delayed or when there are brief spells of no rain in the Monsoon time. This provision is provided for the Main foodgrain crop and the vegetable plot. That is why we had mentioned in the previous section that in a good monsoon year the output would be from 12Ha. ( 6+3 in Kharif and 3Ha in Rabi) but in a bad or sub-optimal monsoon year it would only be 9 ha. (6 Ha in Monsoon and 3 Ha in Rabi because protective irrigation would be used for the Monsoon areas).

One more important thing to be noted is that all the irrigation / water bodies are surface ones and we dont advocate deep digging bore/tubewells.

The Above total shows the amount of water needed in addition to the monsoon water which works out to be a total of 75000 m3 of water needed which is equivalent to 7500 ha-mm (hectare-mm).

For a village of 100 families the total area is 250 ha.

2 NU which would make it 50 people

2 NUs need 15000 (7500 X 2) ha-mm of water. But calculating the total potential for even a 600 mm rainfall area over these 250ha area would come to 150,000 (600X 250ha).

So what we are asking for is just 1/10th of the rainfall [which would come to about 60mm of rainfall falling over 250 ha. area ( 60 X 250 = 15000ha-mm)] for half the HH in the village!!! So in the Panchayats we should be demanding a priority allocation of this water from the public water bodies (channel, check dams, ponds, lakes etc., )

Section - XI - The Land Area and Output calculations

Nutritional Requirements per Household (HH):

According to the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) the normative cereals requirement per capita per person is 157 Kilograms. Considering that a HH has on an average 5 members, the total needed for the HH would be approx. 800 Kgs of cereals. The maximum that the HH gets from the present PDS is around 300 Kgs of Cereals and on top of it this is irregular and most of the times of bad quality, hence the rest of more than half has to be bought from the open market paying for the differential between the producer price and open market price. Correspondingly the quantity for the pulses is 23 Kgs per person per capita with no pulses provided in the PDS at present. Hence a group of 20 resource poor HH and the 5 farmer HH would need an output of 20T foodgrains and corresponding quantity of pulses.

The Land and Output Calculations:

Total Area considered is 10 Ha or 25 Acres and the total number of women would be 20

a) 6Ha – Kharif for food grains

b) 3 Ha – Rabi ( or from protective irrigation) for Pulses / Green Manure / fodder

c) In a good monsoon year the output would be from 12Ha. ( 6+3 in Kharif and 3Ha in Rabi) but in a bad or sub-optimal monsoon year it would only be 9 ha. (6 Ha in Monsoon and 3 Ha in Rabi because protective irrigation has to be provided for the Monsoon areas)

d) 0.2 Ha ( or ½ an acre) for the intensive vegetable cultivation land to the women

e) 0.8 Ha (or 2 acres) on a Sharma type model (Section - VI) where the women offer their services to the farmers for producing 40T of Vegetables or correspondingly pulses. This means 4 women (2 women per acre) can render their services

In addition to the above we need

f) 1.2 Ha ( 6 Gunthas X 20 Women = 120 Gunthas which is 3 acres or 1.2 Ha ) for the growing of the perennial fruit trees whose produce entitlement would be for these 20 women. To the extent possible this could come from Common Lands (Panchayat Lands)

g) Also we would need 15 Ha for the Bio energy, Bio-fuel and Bio mass production. But since this is a huge area it would be done in phases with the First phase having Min. 5 Ha land. More details in the Sections that follow

The Output Calculations:

a) Output in the Chemical farming would be max. of 8 quintals / acre (800Kg) of foodgrains which is 2.2T/ ha so for 6ha it would be 13.2T / ha. We are assuring output for the farmer of 20T / 6ha.

b) With Renke type of input it is 5T/ ha which would mean an output of 30T/ 6 ha, but Renke method would be difficult to be replicated for larger areas as mentioned earlier

Section - X - The Next Steps - Moving Towards a Collective

The Next Steps:

1. A quick Hydological assessment has to be done for the area using the secondary data like satellite mapping, rainfall patterns etc., This is necessary for the irrigation potential assessment

2. Microplanning: Microplanning involves survey of the local neighbourhood for identification of the various resources, good and bad practices, wastages and utilisations of the natural resources. A Survey has to be done in the NU to make up some 3-4 modules of the LEISA intervention (The attached document Datye’s Document_17082006.doc explains the area and water calculations). This survey would be the Microplanning activity to collect the follwing data

a) Water Use
b) Land Use
c) Entitlement
d) Pricing
e) Finance

But anybody working in community development would know that the most abused instrument in a community is the SURVEY!! So to make the Survey as a starting point of the intervention would serve no purpose with no meaningful data collected as the community would have the fatigue of ONE MORE SURVEY. So the idea is to start Microplanning activity after the first year when we have shown the spectacular result in the 1/2 acre. Then the survey could be related to the activity that has already happened and the hope is that the data hence collected would be much more genuine

3. Evolving a Collective: From this data the other farmers in the neighbourhood would be interested to convert to organic as they would have seen that the only input that we would have given for the 1/2 acre was Labour and that too this labour has come as an EGA!! This is not theory but actually this is what happened in our Magadi Intervention. There were 21 farmers at the end of one season wanting to do this in their farms!! So the idea is to form a collective of not the complete Gram Sabha but, manageable units, what are called as Neighbourhood Units (NU), which is typically 40 – 50 Households (HH) and for tribal areas 100 HH. This unit would be a combination of resource poor, landless and land holding farmers

4. The Emergence of the Group of 20 women from 5 women: The increase in the area of cultivation would need more people to work [details provided in later sections] with each set of women concentrating on specific activities like some women working on the preparation of the soil, land development etc., others producing vermicompost,some women managing the procurement and distribution of the produce, sedd banks etc.,

5. We are considering a total area of 10 Ha (25 Acres) [ The detailed calculations are provided in the next section ] in which we are telling the chemical farmers that for them to move away from the Chemical Farming they can utilise the services of these women whose labour is coming from the EGA ( or NREGA as the case maybe) and this is the only sort of support that needs to be offered for a period of 2-3 years and the farmers can be moved away from the fertilisers and pesticide input costs and subsidy.

Section - IX - The crucial 1/2 acre of land as a beginning

In the preceding sections we had talked about the inability of the dryland or a farmer with less water than optimal to do cultivation in his complete area of the land. S/he would leave some land fallow without using it or only doing rainfed farming to some extent.

Step 1: So the starting point is to identify one such farmer (need not have to be a progressive / philantropic farmer). Negotiations are done with the farmers to partake with 1/2 an acre of land for beginning the work. Sometimes it is also done in such a way as to identify the net profit s/he would have got from the land and then compensating him/her for the same either by employing one of the 5 women to be the farmer's wife so that the farmer's family gets 1/5th of the share of the produce ( which would invariably be higher than the net profit that the farmer would have got from the land) or an MOU is signed with the farmer by the organisation stepping in as a Leasing Company paying out a lease to the farmer for 5 years ( typically in the region of Rs. 2000 / year). But one small condition is that some water is assured for this plot of land

Step 2: 5 landless Women ( or one of the women is from the farmer's family) are given "Food-for work" (EGA, Rs. 60 per person per day for 100 days either as cash or grains) to work on this 1/2 acre of land. These women typically are from the Self Help Groups (SHG). This could be seen as a value-addition to SHG itself. If NREGA is already in place then it should be utilised. Whichever district at present has NREGA, there is a movement taken up by organisations to fight for making this work for the people. So as a value-addition to such mobilisation by organisations this can be taken up. Since the landless would have a stake and entitlements through this process they would be in a position to demand the same from the Gram Sabha. The Organisations should play a facilitating role

Step 3: These women will then start using the various organic farming techniques on this land to improve the water utilisation, soil preparation , soil nutrition improvements, water holding capacity etc., These women also combine the various innovative practices around the country. The target ouput for them is to achieve 10T in ½ acre) per year! To begin with they would use the Renke method of High Biomass input. Most of the EGA in the first year is used up for the collection of Biomass and preparation of the Compost. The quantity of Biomass needed is 1.2 Tons / Guntha!!! Obviously this is a very high Input but since the intent is to show spectacular / matching results in the first year itself rather than waiting for a slow upgradation of the soil in 2-3 years this much input is needed. This would take care of the 2 percieved problems of low productivity and long gestation periods of organic farming

Step 4: Since the output is a minimum of 10000 Kgs of vegetables. Even if the vegetables sell at Rs. 3 per kilo ( but normally the price is on an average Rs. 6) then from the 1/2 acre it comes to Rs. 30000 which is equal to the EGA we have provided for the women. So we are indirectly recovering the cost of the EGA!! Each woman will now have the entitlement to 1/5th of this which is Rs. 6000 from this plot.From some of the Microplanning data we have collected, the farmers get around only Rs. 2000 from 3 acre plots!! Thus we have a program for the first time which talks of ensuring the entitlements to these resource poor women (Section-II), actually this is the USP of the whole Intervention....

Why Vegetables?

1. Vegetables are high value crops because of their perishable nature
2. They are short term crops (45-60 days) with a chance of doing 3-4 cycles in a year
3. Since they can be repeated over 3-4 cycles, if for some reason a mistake happens and the crop is lost there is still a chance of doing 2-3 cycles more and overcome the loss due to the mistake


The Effect of this 1/2 acre in overcoming some of the problems mentioned in the previous sections

This 1/2 acre would thus try and overcome 3 serious limitations mentioned in the previous sections

1. Entitlements to the Resource poor (Section - II)

2. NREGA is being used for capacity building and creation of assets wherein the labourers also have some stake and sense of belonging for the work they are doing. The more they take interest in developing their portion of the land, the more they can grow and more the earnings (Section - III)

3. This would also break the perceptions of low productivity and long gestation periods of organic farming (Section - VIII)

Section VIII - Sustainable Agriculture is not just about Organic / Natural Farming. It is about Mainstreaming

Sustainable Agriculture is NOT JUST about Organic / Natural Farming

Even though it has been proven beyond doubt most of us convinced that Organic / Natural Farming is the way to go if the present crisis in agriculture has to be overcome and to move towards sustainable agriculture just the technique of Organic farming is not enough. It still needs an Entrepreneurial Farmer to convert himself / herself into an organic farmer. We have had the best of the innovators in India in Organic / Natural Farming from Solapur to Shimoga and from Yavatmal to Kashipur but the neighbouring chemical farmer is not ready to convert to Organic farming due to lack of incentives to shift to Organic farming. Organic farming is also associated with a lot of "perceived" and "real" problems. I would just mention some of them

1. Organic farming has a gestation period between 2-3 years for "Optimal" yield ( please note the word Optimal and not maximal). This is also true in certain aspects as there are specific techniques to be followed which need certain amount of time to fructify and yield best results. So a subsistence farmer would not have the patience to wait for 2-3 yrs as this is percieved as a loss of income/food for him/her for those number of years even though in the long run it is very beneficial as the amount of inputs needed over time becomes lesser and lesser

2. The second problem is the issue of "Optimal" yield and not that of "maximal" yield. There is a perception that organic farming yields less when compared with chemical farming. Even though this is true in some way it is not completely the truth. There have been enough innovators who have proven that they can match the output of the chemical farming. Also it is beyond doubt established that in the long run the inputs would be very minimal and hence the overall balance in terms of profits would improve, whereas in Chemical farming there is the law of diminishing returns with the increase in the inputeach year to compensate for the loss of soil nutrition

3. The Third Problem is the "Niche" nature of the Organic Market. The Successful organic farmers / organisations have indulged in a sort of Niche marketing of Organic farmers which has resulted in high prices of the produce to the buyer ( we have some outlets in Bangalore selling Ragi for Rs. 34 a Kg and the chemical Ragi is available for Rs. 8!!). So even though people want to go Organic there isn't much incentive in terms of cost to the buyer. Hence you have only a small "converted" crowd who are totally sold to the idea of going organic buying it in a specialised local market or the big organic growers exporting it to the other countries. This is also partly taking off from the Myth mentioned in Item 2 in terms of lower yield (not productivity)

4. The fourth Real problem is the problem of High Labour that is needed in the initial years for this type of farming. Organic Farming is not as dimple as ploughing with a tractor, putting seeds, apply chemical fertilizers and pesticides and take rest till the crop comes up. It also has some amount of optimisation techniques, combination crops for pest management, soil preparation etc., This coupled with the perceived lower yield is a huge disincentive for the farmers to convert themselves to Organic

5. The other problem is influenced by the external agencies like Media, Universities etc., Organic farming is badly marketed by these agencies as something which takes people back in ages with the words like we are romanticising the age of kerosene lamps and we dont need development etc.,

6. The neighbouring farmer also considers the organic farmer as having had some backup in terms of money either as pre-earned money outside the country or being funded externally ( which is also true in some sense as most of the organic initiatives are funded or has an NRI from a software background taking to organic farming, even though the latter case is because of the increased awareness) and hence says it is not for mainstream farmers like him/her

As can be seen from section VII sustainable agriculture does not mean just by looking at agriculture as yield and profits but looking at it in a much more holistic manner. It doesnt help at all if you have the best land but no water, land with water but not skilled labour, best land with water and skilled labour but with dependence on electricity to pump the water. Hence sustainability has to be redefined in its much more broader sense than the narrow definition of yield and profits.

I think a time has come for us to stop jumping from one Organic farming project to another as there is nothing more needs to be proven with the technology as such. There have been enough models from Timbaktu Collective to Yavatmal for people to learn the innovations. A time has come when we need to start learning from these innovations and move towards Programmatic Mode. Organic Farming today is still happening with farmers having the enterprise to try out new things, but not the mainstream farmer. It is still needing a farmer's entrepreneurial qualities to go Organic. So what we need today isn't creation of one more entrepreneurial / philantropic farmer or supporting one more organisation wanting to take up organic farming with external inputs (however well meaning this could be, it would still hinder the mainstreaming process as explained in point 6). IT IS ALSO NOT ABOUT BUYING SOME PIECE OF LAND TO AGAIN PROVE ORGANIC FARMING BUT ABOUT CONVERTING THE OTHER CHEMICAL FARMERS INTO ORGANIC FARMERS (MAINSTREAMING). IT IS ALSO ABOUT CREATING SOME ASSETS AND CAPACITY BUILDING FOR THE RESOURCE POOR AS WELL....

Evidently the common understanding among members of the partnership is to use concessional credit and employment assistance to achieve productivity of land, efficiency of water use, sustainability of diversified agriculture and to build the bio-resource base. The ultimate goal being to create household food security and provide energy and infrastructure for everybody to realise a high quality life.

Section - VII - An Overview of the Intervention

This section gives an overview of the Intervention which we are trying to understand, imternalise and implement with the guidance of Datye.

Sri.K R Datye is an eminent senior Civil Engineer based in Mumbai with over 30 years of experience in planning, construction and operation of large scale irrigation, hydropower and infrastructure projects in India and Africa. He has worked both in Government and as an independent consultant for large private and public sector corporations. He has served on international committees charged with development and standardization of technical norms in hydraulic and geotechnical engineering. For the last 15 -18 years, he has been deeply involved in rural development activities, initiating and leading a number of technology development projects in water, infrastructure and energy sectors. He continues to be involved in policy making committees, concerned with agriculture and rural development activities at both State and Federal government levels. He is a founding member of the Centre for Applied Systems Analysis and Development (CASAD) and Society for People's Participation in Ecosystem Management and, more recently, the Watershed Forum, of which his Society for Renewable Technology is an integral part.

About the Intervention:

The overall scheme is like this:

Step 1: 5 Landless women who form part of a Self Help Group work on 1/2 acre land negotiated with the farmer ( One of the women could be from the farmer's family itself) with some assured water to begin with

Step 2: These landless women are then taught the techniques of soil nutrition improvement, water management, Integrated Pest Management etc., But for their 1/2 Acre they use the High Biomass input Renke Method. They are also given Food-For-Work or Employment Guarantee Assistance ( EGA) as an incentive to learn these methods

Step 3: These women will try and achieve the yield targets set for them. That is 10T of saleable vegetables in their 1/2 acre of land

Step 4: Each woman gets 1/5th share of the produce as entitlement

Step 5: By the end of 2 years these women are not unskilled labourers anymore but skilled labourers whose capacities on organic / natural farming are built. These now become part of a service cooperative ready to offer their services to any farmer seeking their services

Step 6: Seeing this sort of output with no other input other than the labour input would catch the attention of the farmers and they might want to hire these women of the service cooperative

Step 7: A microplanning exercise is done with the help of the local youth groups wherein the local Natural Resources Data is collected like water bodies available, the water harvesting possibilities within the watershed area, the present cultivation practices of farmers, their yield, the best yields, the water usage patterns, the crops etc., are collected and collated

Step 8: From the Microplanning and other satellite data an analysis is also made of the total water harvesting capabilities in the watershed areas and an approximate irrigation possibility is made

Step 9: At this point of time we negotiate with the farmers and form a broader collective called as Neighborhood Units (NU) so that the total cultivable area would increase to around 10Ha for foodgrains, pulses, vegetables, fruits etc., This would consist of typically 5 land holding farmers with 20 landless women

Step 10: Also in a further effort to create some more assets for the women of the service cooperative, negotiations are held with Panchayats (MOU) to part with the common lands and these women would typically grow 40 trees each and maintain the same. The trees could be prennials like Mango, Papaya etc., and biofuel trees like Pongemia, Jathropa etc., or biomass yielding leaves for the Biogas plants leading to alternative, renewable energy systems. This would typically be 1.2 Ha (6 Guntas per woman) for the Prennials and another additional 5 Ha for the alternative energy trees

Step 11: Also one more further idea is to integrate the training of various techniques into an open school syllabus leading to an open school certificate on sustainable agriculture. This is what we call as Education at Workplace

As a result we would move from Food Security to begin with, then Livelihood as a next step and finally onto Energy Security in addition to the Education at Workplace agenda