Drylands: The Way Forward…

A. RAvINDRA, G.V. RAMANJANEYULU and KAVITHA KURUGANTI

DRYLANDS across the world are estimated to be home to 38% of the world’s population. In India, it is estimated that 410 million people live in the drylands.1 Many of these people also constitute the ‘poverty geography’ of the country. Other than the arid zones where even rainfed farming is quite difficult, the heart of the drylands is in the semi-arid zones. Drylands in this country constitute more than 70% of the cultivable lands and despite several odds stacked against them, produce about 42% of the country’s food. It is reported that nearly 83% of sorghum, 81% of pulses and 90% of oilseeds grown in the country come from these areas.

Drylands are home to an enormous wealth of biodiversity. The adaptability and resilience of the dryland livelihood systems are well noted. Rural livelihood systems in drylands (which usually include a mix of natural resource based, non natural resource based and migrant incomes) have, by their persistence over several decades, demonstrated a resilience which runs counter to some predictions of imminent irreversible degradation or collapse. However, the positive features of drylands were ignored with an excessive focus and dependence of an entire country on the green revolution belts for its agricultural growth and food security. The Green Revolution, intensive agriculture model ensured national food security for the country and increased the production and productivity of various crops. It also created serious regional imbalances in terms of resource allocation and use.

Much of the technologies, subsidies and public support systems provided under this undifferentiated agriculture policy fail in responding to the needs or problems of dryland agriculture, thus promoting inequity, whether we examine input support (irrigation, fertilisers, seeds) or out-put support (minimum support price and procurement price mechanisms). A similar tendency is visible in terms of agriculture research priorities, technology development and investments.

It is our contention that the dryland agriculture policy be conceived in a framework germane to its own constraints, opportunities and ecological prerequisites. Some defining conditions for dryland agriculture are:

o Uncertainty of weather conditions imposing multiple risks during the crop growing season.

o Low water (surface or ground) potential.

o Low levels of fertility of the soil and increasing desertification.

o High intensity of livelihood dependence (‘livelihood load’) on the system, particularly of those who are below or near the poverty line.

o Low levels of private investment in land improvement and cultivation.

o Labour utilisation in an ‘episodic’ manner vacillating between peak demand seasons and high unemployment seasons.

o Diversified farming systems as an ecological requirement.

o Traditionally recognised roles for women and livestock in agriculture.

o Dependence on collective action for maintaining the ecosystems – common lands, biomass and water.

What is also important to note is that there is a socio-cultural framework which provided a value system and a particular worldview towards agriculture for the farming communities in the drylands. This framework of culture-society-nature-agriculture continuum provided its own systems and technologies for risk mitigation, reduction of vulnerability and sustainable use of scarce resources.

It is in these frame conditions that an alternative approach to dryland agriculture needs to be conceived. The present note provides some policy instruments which would be useful in providing support for sustainable dryland agriculture. The note assumes that an equitable, community-controlled watershed approach to water harvesting and soil conservation is a prerequisite for dryland agriculture development and does not go into the details of such an approach.

There is need for a fundamental transition.

· The first and foremost shift should be from ‘product/input-centricity’ in agriculture policy to ‘needs/requirement-centricity’. At present all technologies and related subsidies are packaged as inputs from industrial production – be it fertilisers, pesticides or seeds. Most of the ‘chemical inputs’ are in reality a substitute for ‘labour’. For example, any amount of nutrients including nitrogen can be produced if one has labour resources and time. Pest infestations even in cotton, as has been proved at several places, can be effectively managed by collective action and with local plant resources. We need to move away from packaging subsidies and other support into ‘inputs’ and address the actual requirements of diversified farming systems.

· The prerequisite in an uncertain environment is to keep overheads low and lower cash inputs. Reducing dependence on external inputs – particularly cash inputs – should therefore be a major priority.

· Similarly, building in organic mechanisms of risk insurance (diversity, for example; or greater employment generation potential) within agricultural practices and technologies is an imperative.

· From a ‘plot of land’ as a unit of agriculture we need to move towards a household as a unit due to the requirements of a diversified farming system that includes livestock.

· Both studies as well as grassroot experiences of managing dryland agriculture have well-established that community organization around sustainable planning and use of resources is important. This should draw upon the nature-agriculture-culture continuum that existed in traditional agriculture for sustainability, with equity issues squarely addressed in the present-day situation.

Within the above framework the following policy instruments can be thought about.

Integrated nutrient management:

The basic principle proposed here is to provide the labour subsidy/support (in terms of wages for the required person-days) for generation and application of plant nutrients instead of product/input subsidy or support in a situation where the farmer feels it is a ‘burden’ (in terms of own labour or hired labour) and therefore opts for chemicals. Let us take the example of tank silt application in lieu of chemical fertilizers for soil nutrient management.

Studies by agencies like ICRISAT show that it is more economical to apply tank silt than fertilizers.2 The value of increased rainwater storage, groundwater recharge, water availability, restoration of biological activity, micro-nutrients like carbon and improved soil structure are still to be accounted for in the benefits in this study. Another study done by WASSAN on the Neeru-Meeru programme of the Andhra government found that the potential to create employment in tank silt application programmes is enormous. A typical tank (22,500 cum. of tank silt) can generate 6250 person-days of employment. This amounts to providing employment to 50 labourers for 125 days per tank, which can ideally be spread over three years. Many of these labourers would also be marginal farmers. Enabling them to apply tank silt in their own farms will improve their employment opportunities substantially, even as it increases the productivity of the farms.

However, farmers might shy away from these methods since no support is provided for the labour component required. Experience from grassroots work shows that integrated nutrient management is not a difficult task if public support is available in terms of supporting the labour component. How we skill the community or the ‘labour’ whom we make available for the farmers as subsidy is an important aspect. In readily-organised groups, this investment on skill-building would be relatively easier. Such support to farmers can be innovatively routed through SHGs looking for eco-entrepreneurship investment funds. All these ways will also strengthen the agro-ecosystem as more livestock is brought in, more tanks are desilted etc.

Pest management: Lighting bonfires, setting light traps, pest monitoring systems, among others, are proven collective pest management practices in Indian agriculture. Though all of them considerably reduce the pest loads, since they are not ‘input’ or ‘product-centric’, no extension systems are taking them forward. These techniques are based on knowledge and skills of farmers and farm workers. Promoting them requires incorporation of labour component and non-chemical materials’ component (wherever needed) for pest management within the crop loans currently being provided.

It would also be worthwhile to begin with those crops in the dryland belts which at present consume larger amounts of pesticides and therefore impose a heavier burden on the farmers. This includes cotton, pigeonpea, groundnut, chickpea etc. A typical village with around 800 acres of its land under cotton ends up spending 45-50 lakh rupees on pesticides alone.3 In the case of non-pesticidal crop management (NPM), the amount spent on control of pests is around Rs 450 per acre, or just 3.6 lakh rupees for the entire village.

Going organic could be strategically started at both extremes – places where there is abuse of pesticides as well as places that have so far used very little pesticides. Drylands in a state like Andhra Pradesh interestingly have both such extremes where non-pesticidal management of crops should be encouraged. The Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur has documented the economics of organic cotton and found that the net income is always positive and begins to improve on conventional cultivation from the fourth year itself.

The benefits of these ecological approaches go beyond crop economics. If larger positive impacts on the ecology or human health are also taken into account by this shift to non-chemical agriculture, the equation turns more in favour of the ecological options. Therefore, as a way of rescuing dryland agriculture from the crisis of pesticides and given that there are successfully established ecological (non-pesticidal and non-GE) alternatives, we propose that the government support such alternatives in all crops where pesticides are being used in the dryland areas.

There are two issues related to agricultural credit for dryland crops: (i) Scale of finance determines credit availability, computed on the basis of an ‘improved package of practices’, which is again replete with ‘Green Revolution’ paradigm of chemicals; and (ii) because the Green Revolution calculations are used, dryland crops do not get sufficient credit either as scale of finance, or as overall quantum of support.

For instance, the scale of finance for various crops in AP for 2004-05 shows that paddy, at Rs 7000/acre, gets 75% more credit compared to jowar, bajra, ragi or castor.4 Even in the neglected areas, bankers themselves admit that the scale of finance for crops like paddy is so attractive that farmers tend to fudge records to get that quantum of credit, even if they grow other crops.

Though the costing for scale of finance does take into account the expected returns for ensuring repayment of loans, it does not look at the possibility of better net incomes with ecological approaches being adopted. Loan terms and conditions in the drylands should integrate the risk of uncertain rainfall as well as insurance for such failure. They should also encourage inherent risk buffering mechanisms like diverse cropping.

Costing committees need to arrive at a scale of finance for farmer/labour produced inputs such as bio-pesticides and manures, drawing from the examples of sustained or even higher yields in the more ecological approaches. Using similar principles, costing should be done for other crops, once again using existing organised groups and extension system to oversee the operationalisation. A micro-credit approach (like the ones used by self help groups, based on micro-planning and peer collateral) is now being tried out in many districts of Andhra Pradesh for agricultural credit also. Credit support systems can be streamlined in this manner to provide greater support to dryland agriculture.

Integrated and diversified farming systems: Livestock is an essential component of dryland ecosystems. Yet there are practically no support systems available for livestock rearing for most of the dryland regions/farmers. The entire livestock support systems are ‘milk’ centric. It is time we think about the role of livestock beyond milk. The areas of fodder, grazing lands and grazing are essential. Integral to this are the cropping patterns adopted.

Most community efforts in controlled grazing fail because of high transaction costs of collective action. Better governance and providing for these transaction costs as a labour subsidy in a coherent policy frame may help bring about massive regeneration of the commons.

Reviving biomass in the commons through providing appropriate community controlled governance systems is the state’s responsibility. Investments in these efforts and provision of subsidies will kick-start the biomass-ecosystem-livestock-land-livelihoods chain of impacts. This is evident from many experiences around the country.

The government should also begin supporting collective grazing. Community systems that need collective action need to be supported for their transaction costs and opportunity cost, with some contribution from farmers. There is simultaneously a need to recast the existing schemes of promoting para-workers in livestock management.

In these regions huge subsidies are flowing in the name of horticulture and bio-diesel – again, mainly focused on irrigated horticulture and accessed only by those having an irrigation source. Instead the government should promote fruit, fuel, fodder and green manure plantations as an integral part of the agriculture.

Price support and Food security: Price support and creating demand base for the dryland crops, particularly food crops, is important. It is accepted that the dryland food crops are nutritious and healthy. However, the government usually turns a blind eye to the changing food habits in the drylands. It is easy enough to replace the ICDS food with ragi (finger millet) or korra (foxtail millet). It is urgent and important to integrate dryland food grains into the public distribution system and food for work programmes, in a localised/decentralised manner.

The cost of a mid-day meal per child, per day is around three rupees in a state like Tamil Nadu. This could buy more than half a kilo of jowar every day at the MSP announced by the government for jowar (Rs 505 per quintal): half a kilo of jowar will give more than 1605 Kcal energy (more than rice). This includes 47.8 gms of protein (for rice, it is 31.3), 8.7 gms of fat (2.3 gms for rice), 7.3 gms of mineral (2.76 gms for rice) and 7.3 gms of fiber (0.9 gms for rice), superior to rice in every way other than carbohydrates (while jowar has a nutritive value of 331, rice has 359.7 gms for every 460 gms). Similarly, the nutritive values of foxtail millet and pearl millet are higher than rice and even jowar.

Andhra Pradesh plans to spend Rs 250 crore on the mid-day meal scheme. If even Rs 100 crore are spent on procurement of jowar and other dryland millets, nearly 2 million tonnes of such grain can be purchased. In 1998-99, only 5.59 lakh tonnes of jowar was produced in the state. This is just to illustrate that absorption of the produce into the consumption patterns of the state is easily possible by providing price support at the announced MSP.

This paper does not examine details of other important components that need to be addressed in this alternative approach. For instance, it is important to recognize the integrity of ground water irrigation systems with tank systems in the drylands. Small water bodies and irrigation systems integrated with them are important islands within drylands that engage labour during the rabi season. Studies have shown that the elasticity of output with respect to irrigation in semi-arid regions like Telangana is as high as 0.70, as against coastal Andhra’s 0.36. It is time to recognize tank-groundwater systems as a subset of our irrigation policy and evolve support mechanisms and incentives for communities to manage and regulate them.

Similarly, it is important to gear agricultural research to the needs of the drylands. The traditional approach of research removed from the farmers’ growing conditions is unlikely to be effective. Participatory technology development models pioneered by civil society organizations have been successful in many locations. Agriculture research institutions should engage with such models and locate and support farmer innovations in the drylands.

We should also devise innovative insurance packages for the drylands to take care of the vagaries of weather within the broader ambit of risk management strategies. Such an insurance system need not be linked with agricultural credit and could utilize the organizational systems of community-based organizations for operationalisation. Such eco-insurance models are available on a small scale as part of the experience generated by grassroots organizations like the Deccan Development Society in Andhra Pradesh.

Clearly, it will not suffice if only certain components related to dryland farming are addressed by public support systems. It has to be a comprehensive effort focusing on participatory processes and community organizations to implement the alternative approach that will address the inputs into agriculture, the production technologies as well as the produce from agriculture. Such an approach should also integrate socio-cultural aspects of buffering vulnerabilities, drawing from the culture-society-nature-agriculture continuum of traditional agriculture.

The overall objective should be to improve the productivity of the resource base of the communities in a sustainable manner, simultaneously addressing issues of equity so that the livelihood of the ‘last person’ improves in the drylands.

Footnotes:

1. Philip Dobie, Poverty and the Drylands. UNDP, Drylands Development Centre, Nairobi, 2001.

2. ‘Economic Assessment of Desilted Sediment in Terms of Plant Nutrients Equivalent: A Case Study in the Medak District of AP’ – ICRISAT and Medak DWMA, 2003.

3. ‘No Pesticides – No Pests: the Success Story of Punukula in Khammam’, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, 2004.

4. AP State Cooperative Bank’s communication dated 1 March 2004 to all DCCBs.