RESEARCH SEMINAR

POLICY WORKSHOP

PUBLICATION

Agronomy, Rice Production and India's Agricultural Policy - Do Knowledge and Evidence Matter?
Rajeswari S Raina, NISTADS - CSIR

In policy research literature and theories, India’s green revolution is a typical case of the “great leap theory” (or punctuated equilibrium) (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993; 2002). It made a summarily distinct break with the past, bringing a redefinition of the issue (here food self sufficiency and food security), new actors, structures and rules, generated both scientific and emotional (political) support for the change or re-framing of the problem (see, Sivaraman, 1991). Few acknowledge that India had no agricultural policy document till the dawn of the 21st century. The first National Agriculture Policy was drafted by the Ministry of Agriculture in the year 2000 (Govt. of India, 2000); it is yet to be debated in the Parliament. The country still has no policy or strategic framework for agricultural research or extension, besides those mentioned in The New Strategy in Indian Agriculture (Subramaniam, 1974), and a selective helping of recommendations from the National Commission on Agriculture (NCA, 1976).

This paper uses agronomy (a discipline that was once the core discipline in the agricultural sciences, which has now given way to biotechnology and genetics) and the production of rice (a staple that is grown and consumed in highly diverse agro-eco-cultures, of which only 47 percent is grown with assured irrigation – unlike the 80 percent area under assured irrigation for wheat) to argue that what was lost in the redefinition of the issue, the new actors and rules, and the scientific and political support for the green revolution, was the capacity of policy making actors to review and analyse evidence. This capacity to demand and access knowledge and evidence is most clearly lacking when it comes to policy response to rainfed rice production. How can another ‘great leap’ be enabled, especially in the case of rice production? .

Up-scaling of SRI: Adapting complex, multi-component, packages of practices to complex, location-specific farming systems.
Willem A. Stoop

Government policies and agricultural development initiatives as funded by various aid agencies tend to search for simple (standardised), widely applicable solutions based on linear thinking and meticulous planning. Projects are generally guided by some common formulation and implementation rules: a set of rational objectives, an implementation plan and schedule, as well as targets / milestones to be achieved by a certain date. Because of this inherently “top-down” orientation and often inflexible formats many well-intended projects fail miserably particularly in strongly hierarchical societies / organisations.

In this respect SRI provides a particular challenge. Not only is SRI a multi-component technological package, but generally it also needs to be adapted to the location-specific needs and conditions of farmers, who already have to manage their complex actual systems (see experiences reported by Sabarmatee, Debashish and Ravindra). It needs to be appreciated that the present systems are diverse and variable, and far more dynamic than commonly depicted. Also serious problems of a psychological nature arise when the proposed practices are counter to traditional knowledge and experience (in that respect farmers are not that different from scientists). The use of excessive seed rates by both scientists and farmers in establishing their rice and wheat plots forms an illustrative example.

In the presence of such mental barriers successful implementation and introduction requires that a number of pre-conditions are fulfilled. First of all this involves “flexibility” and a capacity to improvise. The development agency has to embark on a collaborative “learning” exercise with the targeted community. This learning exercise should be anchored locally by assigning responsibilities to respected and motivated (often young) people from within the community in guiding various field operations (e.g. farmer field schools, farmer tests/experiments, farmer discussions). As the project has made clear, the introduction of the SRI set of practices involves not only some bio-technical knowledge, but also touches on profound (labour) organisational issues, precisely at a most critical time of the farming calendar. These are often among the most complex to solve. Understandably, this search for new technical as well as social equilibria may require several consecutive cropping seasons.

The Indian scene presents some illustrative contrasts where different scaling strategies have led to distinctly different impacts in how successful SRI was introduced.

Reference: Ramalingam, B., 2013. Aid on the edge of chaos. Rethinking international cooperation in a complex world. Oxford University Press. 440pp.

FAO’s policy advice on sustainable rice intensification and experiences of field implementation in Asia
Jan Willem Ketelaar, Chief Technical Advisor, FAO Regional Office for Asia and Pacific

To feed a growing world population, there is a pressing need to increase crop production while ensuring sustainability and enhancing resilience to face new challenges. This is particularly relevant to rice production in Asia where increases in production are slowing and land, water and labour are moving out of production. FAO is promoting the concept, principles and good practices of sustainable rice intensification under the banner of its Save and Grow production intensification strategy. This strategy is echoed in the recently released FAO Regional Rice Strategy, which spells out policy advice for the development of national policies and programmes for the rice sector. A Regional Rice Initiative for the Asia and Pacific region is underway to implement the Save and Grow production intensification strategy. The initiative is intended to assist smallholder farmers to grow well-yielding rice crops and improve management efficiencies while making optimal use of ecosystem goods and services. This presentation will provide an overview of FAO’s policy advice on sustainable rice intensification and experiences of field implementation in Asia to date.

System of Rice Intensification Implications for Indian Development Policy: A Global Perspective and Some Specific Suggestions
Norman Uphoff, SRI-Rice, Cornell University, USA

Although organizations and agencies in many countries have been slow to respond to the opportunities that System of Rice Intensification (SRI), knowledge and experience are accumulating for more rapid, more economical, more eco-friendly, and more equitable development of agriculture. India through several of its states and with central government support has been one of the most responsive and innovative with regard to SRI opportunities. The number of farmers using SRI methods in India and their area under SRI management has now surpassed the levels in China, making India a world leader on this and related agroecological innovations (SCI). However, national and state policies have yet to capitalize fully upon these opportunities.

This paper reviews directions in which policy could accelerate and increase benefits from SRI for farmers, for consumers, and for the environment. Areas in which suggestions will be made include:

• Research – reduce social and other distances between ‘lab’ and ‘land,’ supporting more two-way communication and more farmer participation in framing research questions and in conducting in-field research. Contrary to usual assumptions, experiment-station research may not always be giving the most appropriate results, particularly because the contributions of the soil biota (always location-specific) are usually ignored in most current agronomic research.

• Extension – reorient extension personnel’s tasks and responsibilities from primarily promoting inputs and pushing their sale, to communicating, refining and applying ideas and knowledge. More support for farmer-to-farmer extension activities for horizontal diffusion rather than top-down promotion which lacks precise local applications and credibility.

• Subsidies – level the playing field so that agroecological innovations like SRI, less costly and more environmentally-friendly, are not discriminated against by the promotion of hybrid seeds and subsidization of electricity and water which creates large fiscal burdens on government.

• Labour – under SRI, labourers become both more skilled and more productive, and consequently they should be remunerated appropriately, receiving a fair share of the greater value-added created by their skilled labour. Training should be provided to agricultural labourers, with appropriate arrangements for surplus-sharing.

• Mechanization – better implements and tools should be developed, with farmer participation, to enhance labour productivity, reduce drudgery, and save on labour requirements. Motorization of weeders and mechanical transplanters can more significantly reduce the labour requirements for SRI where there are labor shortages even if more equitable wages are paid.

• Infrastructure – because there is social as well as economic value from SRI’s water saving, programs like NREGA should invest in improving land leveling and field construction, so that farmers can grow more food with less water. Also farm-to-market roads can be improved.

• Marketing – since SRI methods make ‘unimproved’ (traditional, local, heirloom) varieties more productive and consumers are willing to pay more for high-quality rice, these varieties can become more profitable to farmers. Marketing systems should be organized to accept and reward quality grain.

• Hybrids – with SRI methods, hybrid varieties, like other improved varieties, give the highest yield in quantity, but not necessarily with highest-quality grain. Government policy should not be promoting hybrid use at the expense of rice biodiversity (with loss of local varieties). India’s staple food needs can be met with a mix of hybrid and traditional varieties, letting the market and consumer preferences decide the balance. Considerations of profitability, grain quality, and the conservation of rice biodiversity, rather than only yield, should be guiding policy.

Irrigation System Reforms: New Policy Opportunities With System of Rice Intensification
Ravindra Adusumilli and Debashish Sen

Rice cultivation has fast expanded to districts with negative moisture index aided by groundwater irrigation and power subsidies. Lack of drainage and improper distribution of water between head and tail-end commands are pernicious problems in canal irrigation. The package of practices for rice, its promotional programs with subsidies do not consider ‘water resources management’ as a design factor. This has resulted into ‘ponding’ the fields with irrigation water as a generic practice. The programs and public investments on rice like those under National Food Security Mission for example, are more focused on promoting subsidised inputs and production packages in isolation of the natural resource base. Groundwater depletion, physical and economic water scarcities are now ubiquitous in majority of rice cultivation areas in India.

Based on field analysis of rice cultivation in semi-arid and mountainous agro-ecosystems, the paper argues for integration of irrigation systems reform and the agronomic principles of SRI as a policy package to sustainably increase rice production. Such integration has an added benefit of using SRI as a lever for irrigation systems reform.

The study covers seven semi-arid villages in Telangana with groundwater irrigation under individual borewells and four high-rainfall villages in Uttarakhand under Guhl-surface irrigation systems. The study makes comparative analysis of water use and yields across the local and SRI methods as practiced in these two locations using primary data collected during the crop growth. Based on the primary data, it profiles and analyses water management practices in rice cultivation. Contrasting these highly diverse agro-ecosystems, the study finds similarities in the perceptions and practice of water use, largely driven by the policies and irrigation systems level processes. It also finds similar opportunities in the two contrasting agro-ecosystems to increase rice yields when transition toward the principles of SRI is enabled and embedded into irrigation systems reform. Based on the analysis, the study suggests broader framework principles for a systematic integration of SRI promotion with irrigation systems reform.

SRI in Jharkhand: Total Village Programme and an SRI Institute
Yezdi Karai, Pro-Chancellor, Usha Martin University

KGVK is an NGO supported by the Usha Martin group of companies that has been involved in Total Village Movement in Jharkhand. As part of its work on improving agricultural livelihoods KGVK has been involved in the manufacture of tools and equipments for farmers and also in direct extension of SRI involving the spread of SRI from 1,287 farmers in 2008-09 to 3.725 in 2012-13. This year KGVK has undertaken a massive scale up of SRI to reach 18,900 farmers and seeks to maintain a database of all the farmers. As part of the new Usha Martin University and its centre for inclusive growth there is a plan to set up an SRI institute as well. The paper would share the CSR work of Usha Martin on SRI and on how the new University can provide an inclusive platform to enable different stakeholders to meet and plan together for improving agricultural livelihoods in the state.

Area Approach to SRI Extension: Emerging lessons from a Convergent Program on scaling up SRI in Andhra Pradesh
S. Bhagya Laxmi, WASSAN