Alleviating Rural Poverty through Low-cost and Biological Approaches of Crop Production and Innovative Market System -
 
A Proposed outline

OP Rupela1, S Mehta2, CLL Gowda1, Ajit Maru3

1. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.
2. Devarao Shivaram Trust, Deva Prasad, 19 Palace Road, Bangalore 560052, Karnataka, India.
3. Agricultural Research Officer, GFAR Secretariat, Vialle Delle Terme Di Caracalla, 00100, Rome, Italy.

Abstract
Farmers in general and small-holder farmers of developing countries in particular are custodians and conservators of much of the genetic biodiversity. Some components of Green Revolution (GR) technologies, particularly agrochemicals, potentially threaten this task of farmers. In addition, their use has increased the cost of crop production in some developing countries impinging on farmers' profitability. Low-cost and biological approaches based on recycling of natural resources with or in the vicinity of small-holder farmers have been reported to allow yields comparable to conventional agriculture treatment receiving market-purchased inputs. Over the years, the reported low-cost and farmer-empowering protocols of crop production have been reported to enhance soil health including substantial increase in tradable soil carbon, and should attract policy makers.

Agricultural research and development institutions have generally focused on productivity related issues and taken the relevant technologies of crop production to farmers via industry and market. Farmers have generally been seen as producers of crops without any stakes further on. Linking of farmers to markets, a relatively recent and welcome trend in some places in some counties  has generally happened for facilitating disposal of their produce. Unless protected by policies, even this linkage can work more in favor of markets than the farmers. A new model making farmers as stakeholders in farm-produce to the end, right in their rural settings, is proposed. Authors call this as Producer Company (PC) concept. PC is a company of the farmers, by the farmers and for the farmers, financially facilitated by a government, but managstaffed by professionals, leaving farmers to farm and on-farm activities. This is expected to make rural areas as hub of economic activities. More information is provided separately on its likely functioning.

Background and rationale
Farmers in developing countries, particularly those with small-holdings, mostly depend on the use of genetic biodiversity for their income and living and are thus the traditional conservators of thousands of agricultural crop varieties which otherwise would have been lost forever. This important role of farmers is under threat due to use of modern agricultural inputs. In addition, most farmers have conserved the traditional knowledge on crop production and protection using locally available natural resources. Substantial extent of this knowledge has been scouted and documented (see www.sristi.org) by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and public-sector research organizations (Acharya et al. 2001). Together, these two aspects - diversity and practitioners' knowledge, have provided an excellent survival system for rural communities for centuries.

Most farmers in several developing countries have small farm holdings (about 74% having 2 ha or less (Chadha et al. 2004). Small-holder farmers, particularly those away from bigh towns and cities use minimal external inputs fro crop production. It is this group of farmers who are and to a large extent continue to be the custodians and conservators of much of the genetic biodiversity of crop species and flora and fauna on a farm land due to least interventions from external inputs and due to recycling of farm inputs (Maeder et al. 2002). Small-holder farmers should therefore be the focus of agricultural research and development system.

Green Revolution (GR) technologies enhanced food production and productivity and greatly helped some developing countries to come out of the food-insecure conditions. After about 30 years of their use, fallouts were apparent in terms of (a) yield stagnation, particularly in the Indo-Gangetic plains (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh), reference? (b) pesticide residues not only in food chain but also in the blood streams of farmers in the GR centers like Punjab of India and in the mother's milk in Tamil Nadu, India, reference? (c) ever increasing cost of production largely due to the increased dependence of farmers on purchased inputs (instead of using technologies that allow on-farm generation of inputs), resulting in social and economic stress on farm families.

Over years, several items of agricultural research outputs have been noted that when assembled into crop production and protection protocols have shown a great potential of addressing the issues of harvesting high yield while largely using locally available natural resources.  The proposed outline of addressing rural poverty builds upon such outputs of the mainstream agricultural research system. It also honors farmers' traditional knowledge (TK) items on different aspects of crop production and protection and proposes to harness these.

High yield with low-cost and biological options
Protocols of crop production and protection without synthetic agro-chemicals are available largely with farmers practicing organic farming (OF) and some components of these protocols have been studied and published by mainstream science. A few of these in a system perspective have been evaluated in a long-term field experiment, in large plots, at ICRISAT since June 1999, where conventional agriculture (involves INM, IPM) has been used as control. The treatments receiving crop nutrients through biological options and crop protection using locally available low-cost biopesticides yielded comparable to conventional agriculture treatment (Rupela et al. 2005, Rupela et al. 2006) in six out of eight years. The treatment receiving both chemical and biological inputs was always highest yielding, even though it had highest cost of production. Soil health and soil fertility greatly improved with the low-cost and biological inputs over that of conventional agriculture (Hameeda et al. 2006). Biological input-based crop protection protocols used in the on-going long-term experiment at the research station have been successfully used in on-farm experiments for protecting cotton since the rainy season 2003, and for protecting vegetables since 2005 (Rupela et al. 2006b). Help and guidance of an NGO busy scouting farmers' traditional knowledge items relevant to crop protection (available on their website (www.sristi.org) were important in developing the protocols used in the on-going long-term experiment at ICRISAT and in the on-farm crop protection experiment. Partner farmers in this continuing drive pay for the cost of bio-inputs in the relevant treatment plots. Most partner farmers in the past three years were benefited due to the use of biopesticides (some of which were locally produced by women self-help groups in village Kothapally, Rangareddy district of Andhra Pradesh, India) and over 50% harvested higher yields from plots receiving bio-intensive pest management (BIPM) than those receiving synthetic pesticides. The experience gained in using the eco-friendly methods of crop production and protection are proposed for further evaluation at multi-locations involving research institutes and NGOs.

In our publications and presentations based on the work indicated above, done at several fora in the past about five years, we have chosen to call these components as "low-cost and biological options of crop production and protection", even though these were essentially equivalent to OF (except for certification part) to indicate use of only those components that have been evaluated by us or have been noted as studied by the mainstream science. Based on these results and learning from visits to OF practitioners, we are now confident that crops indeed can be grown without synthetic agrochemicals and without dependence on large volumes of compost stated by critics as largely unavailable (and correctly so) with farmers. The proposed strategy involves (i) growing trees on field and farm bunds, to harness/access crop nutrients from lower-depths of soil profile and deposit on surface soil through loppings, (ii) in-situ generation of plant biomass by selecting crops strategically or from tree at farm or field bunds that allow loppings and still allow fruit production even if at lower rates, (iii) reduced tillage and use of plant biomass as surface mulch (iv) use local recipes of ferments with high population of agriculturally beneficial microorganisms (eg. nitrogen fixers and P-solubilizers), (v) use locally available botanicals and other alternative means for crop protection, preferably the inputs of quality products through rural enterprises, (vi) using market available bifertilizers and biopesticides of microorganisms which are generally low at organic farms. Using this strategy the yield in the relevant treatment was generally higher than the conventional agriculture treatment. The strategy listed here can be called a list of good agricultural practices (GAP) and most OF practitioners were noted using most or all of these items. Thus OF is not simply a replacement of bag fertilizers by similar quantity of nutrients applied through compost which is indeed a scarce item. Thus this type of crop production and protection system cannot be a threat to food security of any nation as feared by Chhonkar (2003). In the areas presently using minimal quantities of agrochemicals, use of the biological options stated here should substantially enhance their productivity. Also, we are not averse to use of chemical inputs where noted as wanting, eg. some micronutrient can be in yield-limiting concentrations at some locations. We are therefore confident of sustainable high yields using these strategies and propose to evaluate, if and when an opportunity arises.

Addressing technology delivery and farmers' needs
It is widely accepted that adoption rate of any agro-technology, particularly if it is relevant to natural resource management, is very low. In most cases, farmers adopt/use protocols/materials as long as a project is active and withdraw after it is concluded. This project proposes an innovative way to enhance take-up of the biological options of crop production and protection on long-term basis by linking it to farmers' longterm interest - the livelihoods. The core issue in improving agriculture is to bring equitable participation of the smallholder farmers in all systems, institutions and processes that are involved in the transfer of information, knowledge, skills, resources and technology that contribute to development of the farmers. For this reason, a new concept is proposed which is expected to make rural areas a hub of economic growth. We are calling this a 'Producer Company (PC)' concept (Rupela et al. 2006c). More information of the PC concept is available on request. This is proposed to bring equitable participation of farmers, link researchers and extension system, and harness information and communication technologies (ICT) for rural development. The concept should provide a good platform for relevant rural institutions to discharge their roles more efficiently.

The PC is a body of, for and by the member farmers (voluntary and with membership fee), but staffed and managed by professionals selected by a village committee (body of the farmers) and facilitated by government. The PC takes over the risks and responsibilities of the farmers in interacting with local government and markets, leaving farmers to focus on farm and farm activities. Member farmers in a given village will sow crops as agreed with the PC and at end of season will sell produce to PC (after retaining quantities for their family needs) at prices committed at the time of writing the plan and budgets for a farmer, made in consultation with PC. Farmers will remain the primary stakeholders in the produce to the end. Whether a PC follows OF or GAP will be decided in a participatory manner by the member farmers. The type and extent of different crops will depend on continuous monitoring of farmers' needs and market demand. The PC will meet the needs of all its members and of other families in the area, at the basic price plus service charge and will sell the extra produce to market through   back to back purchase agreements. The PC will be an advisory to farmers on all aspects of crop production and protection, besides on post harvest handling up to marketing. Employees of the PC will also be shareholders in the PC and report to VC and will earn their living by value addition to the farm produce. PC will also be a key link between the government programs and policies.

Research backstopping
This proposal builds upon the items of traditional knowledge of farmers that have been recognized by the mainstream agriculture system as scientifically sound for crop nutrition eg. compost application is important even if we add fertilizers as crop nutrients and for crop protection eg. using neem oil. But focus of the work will be farmer-empowering. For example, instead of neem-oil, neem-fruit kernel extract can be equally effective but can be produced/promoted as a rural enterprise. Experience of working with farmers suggests that most farmers practicing OF use several such items as basic inputs in crop production and protection. Most of these farmers claim that their yields are similar and at times higher than their neighbor conventional farmers (Alvares 1996). Even though there is a need to verify such claims but there are plausible reasons that the claims may be correct. It is indicated so by our own experience (Rupela et al. 2005, Rupela et al. 2006a). It is proposed to (a) invest resources to enhance sustainable crop production protocols by conducting replicated experiments to understand reasons of high yields with biological options but remain inclusive for agro-chemicals (but not pro-actively promoting them), (b) learn and record any innovative components of crop production and protection practices of farmers, (c) articulate science to selected practices of crop production and protection used by farmers.

Access efficient microorganisms with agriculturally beneficial traits and deposit these to relevant microbial collections for bioprospecting in future.

Overall objective of such studies should be to convince peer scientists and policy makers that crop yields with locally available (or that can be produced in-situ) low-cost and biological inputs can be comparable or even higher than conventional inputs (fertilizers, synthetic pesticides) and that cost of production can be significantly reduced to help small-holder farmers. The output of these activities would form a strong basis for scaling up of the low-cost and biological options and encourage governments to invest in their favor.

The way forward
A country concerned/interested in helping its small-holder farmers  needs to take bold steps to nurture its agricultural system. Following suggestions should help.

Prepare a strategic road map for a research and development program that fosters agricultural production based on good agricultural practices as discussed above. Disadvantaged and the rainfed areas should be the first for the suggested development program.

Progressively, reduce all so-called farmer targeted funds given as subsidy in some countries to agro-input producers such as of synthetic fertilizers, bio fertilizers, bio pesticides and synthetic pesticides. At the same time no money should be given directly to farmers as subsidy because this will perpetuate problems as noted in some countries (what are these problems as you stated noted in the West ? SM to brief here). Instead, funds should be diverted to farmers through the programs for development that harness the PC concept stated above.

As an important policy initiative, financial support (direct or indirect) to the input-based crop production and protection system must be reduced and finally withdrawn. The companies (including those where government is involved) engaged in their production should spend their own resources for promoting the type of agriculture that is based on external inputs.

Credits (essentially needed to buy the external inputs) given to farmers in some countries eg. India for input-based farming are a lure for receivers to use the money elsewhere. In the GAP-based agriculture, inputs can be generated on-farm. Therefore ideally, government should scrap the credit policy for farmers all together. But if continued it should be for enhancing local generation of biological or microbiological inputs and for ensuring food-security locally, such as for buying milch cows and buffaloes or even dry cattle, sheep and goats as they play an important role in natural resource based agriculture.

Human Resource Development - whole agricultural research, extension and education system and its linkages with agricultural communities needs a relook. Agricultural Universities presently having role in agricultural education, research and extension, should have a major focus on (a) GAP as relevant to small-farm holdings, (b) low-cost and locally available natural resources and their recycling to generate farmer-empowering agro-technologies, (c) articulate science to traditional knowledge of farmers. Basic research is very important, but be concentrated in selected well equipped and adequately-funded labs/institutes.

Crop development component is very important. But its focus should be to empower farmers. Eventually the seed should be available to farmers at affordable cost. Rural seed-bank concept has been successfully used at some locations in India (reference).

Setting-up a mechanism of fullest support to the PC concept. PC as an idea has been in use in various forms by some farmer groups in India (Subhash - is it in use in some other countries also?). The proposed focus here is institutional PC where government facilitates it through funding the structural needs under the existing (modified where needed) company laws. Focus here is to make farmers as stakeholders and participants in their own development.

Extension - needs a change in focus from the present input-based to knowledge-based diversification involving local predominant farming system. Presently, the technology delivery system as established in the 1960's is totally broken down. This be refurbished to link to the concept of PC. Also, the technology of crop production and protection using natural resources is presently practiced largely by some farmers supported by NGOs, agencies and companies promoting organic farming principles and GAP. These be given an important role to scale up these technologies.

All government programs aimed at nutritional and social security of vulnerable and captive groups (eg. schools), should be linked to the PC concept such that the PC could readily sell them their products.

Overall, it seems feasible to grow crops without or minimal purchased inputs in several regions. Crops do need nutrients to grow and protectants to save them from insect-pests and diseases. Most of these can be produced in-situ on-farm. What is needed is an important change to decide in favor of developing agro-technologies that would empower farmers.  Use of several of the crop protection products developed based on traditional knowledge of farmers can be promoted through rural enterprises. But acceptance and scaling up of these products and other eco-friendly crop production options is the biggest challenge. This may be addresses better by linking the uptake of these technologies to livelihoods of the farmers. The proposed model is expected to do the job.

Drive newD/grep/rep/GFAR paper updated 24May2k7