DOCUMENTING FARMER’S INNOVATIONS OR HOW DO PEOPLE SURVIVE THROUGH

documenting farmer’s innovations: or how do people survive through innovations in risky regions anil k. gupta* 1. why shoul

DOCUMENTING FARMER’S INNOVATIONS:
OR HOW DO PEOPLE SURVIVE THROUGH INNOVATIONS IN RISKY REGIONS
Anil K. Gupta*
1.
Why should we document these innovations:
*
climate, soil, crop and other variabilities at short distance in
humid and arid risky environments compel the cultivators to evolve
location specific farming practices;
*
science under lying many of these practices still remains to be
properly understood with the result that some of the innovative
practices are considered traditional and sign of backwardness of
the peasants:
*
it is possible to generate `lateral learning’ among farmers by
sharing innovative practices found suitable in one region with the
farmers in another similar region after on farm testing/ trials if
necessary. This will speed up the process of technological change
in regions where formal technology generation system has not been
very successful. Even in less risk prone regions it can not be
assumed that an innovative technology will diffuse on its own just
because it has been evolved by some farmers in a village. Only an
outstanding technology diffuses without interventions of the
scientists such as Mexican varieties or relay cropping of wheat in
standing aman (monsoon season) paddy or seed storage practices
using neem leaves;
*
some of these innovations will help extend the frontier of
knowledge by providing basis of developing new concepts or adding
value by grafting or budding available formal biological science
knowledge to the farmers own knowledge;
*
inclusion of these innovative practices in the graduate and post
graduate curriculum will help instill pride among young minds in
their own heritage, make them more humble and respectful towards
farmers;
*
by sharing this accumulated knowledge with the farmers back we
will restore their pride in their own innovative potential.
Colonial and post colonial rule in many developing countries has
made farmers more dependent upon the external sources of knowledge
in a manner that their experimental ethic has been weakened; this
ethic has to be revived;
*
agricultural scientists working in agri university, development
departments and extension agencies will find in this knowledge a
rich opportunity for recasting their research and action agenda
wherever felt necessary. It is not argued that farmers can develop
technologies for all situations entirely through their own
efforts. Plant introduction and technology transfer across
continents has gone on for centuries;
*
Innovations, like any other aspect of knowledge, are embedded in a
cultural setting. We use tulsi (basil) in tea or other
medicaments, we also advise children not to pluck its leave after
sun set. But we abhor the idea of farmers worshipping it. Does
putting a moral or spiritual value on a practice make it any less
scientific just on this account ?
2.
Suggested Format of Documentation
Several dimensions of the innovationer have to be documented in order
to fully understand the implications of a practice:
a.
Ecological context: soil – climate (rainfall, wind velocity if
relevant, humidity, etc.) – crop interactions, major risks
seasonal or otherwise; major changes in the vegetation or other
ecological parameters in the last few years which might have
necessitated such as innovation;
b.
Historical context: any major happening such as a crop failure,
year of glut or scarcity in which the innovation was first tried
by some farmers, any major event or exposure;
c.
Economic and administrative context: distribution of wheat under
drought/flood relief led to experimentation on wheat in many such
regions which did not have any prior reserve of knowledge with
regard to cultivation of wheat, only in certain years such as
after major flood or other stress do some practices occur e.g.
`BHURA KAON’ an inferior millet found widely grown north west
Bangladesh after floods, how do people preserve seeds of such
crops,
d.
Serendipity: some time by accident a practice is discovered either
for the same problem as tackled now or for some totally different
problem; Explain if the innovation in question was evolved by
accident;
e.
Who evolved the innovative technology; an individual or group. In
some cases innovative practices are found at the field of several
farmers. In such cases the coverage must be recorded (how
widespread the practice is?). The name of the village and the
farmer innovator or communicator as the case may be should be
given without fail. Brief background of the farmer family may be
given in appendix about following factors: whether native of the
same village or emigrant from another village (name ?); age,
family composition, does he or she migrate out seasonally (where,
when, for how long, did he see such a practice there ?); since
when tried this innovation, area/coverage under it the holding
level as distinct from village, non-farm sources of income; Women
who after marriage move to husband’s house (almost inevitably in a
different village) bring with them a socio-ecological perspective
which provides a spur for new innovations; Their dissatisfaction
with some practice widely prevalent locally may also generate
pressure for a concerted search; this is in addition to the
experimentation which women may do on their own in animal or human
medicine but also agricultural seed selection, preservation, fruit
preservation, homestead gardening etc.
f.
Did farmer share this practice / tool / seed or recipe with other
farmers ? What was the reaction/s ?
g.
Description of the innovation:
Crop related; specie, variety, uniqueness of the practice – what is
the general practice in the region and how is it different from that;
what have been the changes in the present practice as distinct from
what was tried first time or what was observed by the innovating
farmer elsewhere; does farmer know of some body else who has tried the
same innovation and continued with it or discontinued (is it possible
to talk to that farmer/s); problems faced by the farmers if any; side
effects – positive or negative ?; preconditions i.e. this innovation
is found good only if certain conditions exist; specify those
conditions;
Plant protection: dominant method – spray, seed treatment, fumigation,
agronomic manipulation etc., if botanicals (ingredients of plant
origin e.g. extract of pitras leaves or old jute seed) or common
chemicals or derivatives (ash, salt, kerosene etc.), mixture of many
compound, innovative use of waste material (burning old tyres),
inter-cropping (Banana cultivation in paddy field to keep rats away
through rustling sound produced by the leaves of banana leaves;
coriander to attract the predators of pest of pulses or oilseeds,
marigold to keep nematodes away etc.) etc. dosage, time of
application, precautions if any, life cycle of target pests at which a
particular method works; conditions under which effectiveness is
increased or decreased; local names of the pests any significance of
that name in the choice of control strategy.
Tools/equipment: is it an improvisation over an existing equipment or
is it totally a new device, is it new application of an old device
(using cycle for pumping water for instance) or a combination of both
old and new device; how does the artisan explain its advantages/
disadvantages as distinct from the narrative of the farmer; rough
sketch of the tool, what are the specific soil and crop conditions, if
any, for which the innovative equipment is found suitable; are their
any special raw materials (wood of a particular tree preferred for
making a particular part); What are the major variations introduced by
the farmers or artisans over time or space; if farmers have made an
innovative modification over the existing `modern’ tool, then it
should be distinguished from an innovative tool developed by the
farmers/ artisans themselves, if the innovative tool has been used for
a long time it should be so recorded; its limitation like of any other
innovation as perceived by the farmers and separately by the observer;
cost, life and power requirements, any special care if needed in
operation.
3.
Performance (as judged by the users, non-users and observers)
Apart from the cost, benefit from the innovative practice vis-à-vis
the existing practices, it is important to note the environmental
consequences, use of waste or case of tools, gender implications (do
women use it more easily or feel this practice more economical), do
farmers or other users recommend it for others without modifications
or with modifications/ trials etc. rate of diffusion over recent years
from farmer to farmers; is it possible to use this innovation for any
new purpose as per the observation by farmers or researcher;
4.
Variability in innovations: some practices are not innovative per
se but the extent of variability evolved by the farmers make these
so; in such cases the pattern in variability may be described.
5.
Adoption/ discontinuance: some innovations diffuse while other do
not, what are the factors which farmers have identified in this
regard as different from the ones identified by the observer;
reasons for discontinuance.
6.
Scientific explanation: wherever possible scientists may be
requested to comment upon each of the innovative practice; for
instance if farmers do not comment upon the root system being
variable in an inter cropping system. But scientists note that as
the main contributing factor for the success of a given pattern
then it should be so mentioned. If the concept underlying a
practice does not exist in the science (e.g. vertical incision and
insertion of tobacco/ opium in cucurbits noted by On Farm
scientists in Bangladesh as a way of transforming the vegetative
stage to reproductive one is mentioned by the plant physiologists
as a new concept, likewise the elongation of the life of tomato by
hanging the whole uprooted plant upside down in shade is reported
to be caused by slowing down of a chemical which is responsible
for maturity), likewise wrapping seeds of gourd (?) in the dhoti
near the waist (Zainul Abedin, 1985) to germinate by using the
moisture and body temperature may be explained by the scientific
requirement of seed for breaking dormancy.
How do we document ?
An illustrative check list for documenting local knowledge.
It may be useful to note that specific questions which need to be
asked will vary from case to case. There is no escape from following
an iterative, interactive and conflictive methodology (Gupta, 1981) to
document and validate the description of household decision making. In
this method researchers (farmers, rural youth, extension workers, bank
staff etc. can all be researchers. The first round of documentation is
done without any check list so that the realm of relevance (i.e. the
variables considered important by the investigator himself/herself)
become apparent. Only when this initial documentation is shared with
other co investigators, through group dynamics other relevant
questions which did not occur to any one investigator start emerging.
The expert must demystify his knowledge by admitting his ignorance on
the issues which did not occur to him too.
It is also important to note that which piece of knowledge or
innovation is considered worth pursuing depends upon what surprises
us. Thus the innovation in farmers field often become a function of
our own ability to feel surprised.
Very often therefore documentation of local innovations requires an
outsider’s perspective even if not an outsider itself. Not taking
anything for granted requires willingness to understand the context in
which different practices have evolved. A normal practice in an
abnormal context becomes an innovation. The normal refers to a
widespread practice under predominant climatic and environmental
conditions. In a drought prone region the normal would imply the
erratic nature of environment and accordingly absence of any constant
parameters. On the other hand in an irrigated region even a small
disturbance becomes abnormal because it is infrequent. Therefore,
attempts to characterize high risk environments are ridden with
problems. It is better to concentrate on understanding the thumb rules
which are followed by the rural households while managing
environmental variabilities.
An innovation occurs when a new rule evolves even if its application
has not succeeded in the case being studied. This is one of the most
important caution that students of peasant innovation have to keep in
mind.
The questions being mentioned below illustrate the process of
understanding the context in which the content of innovation can be
understood.
An innovative practice of broadcasting tobacco powder for controlling
pests generated following questions.
*
What is the specific name/names of the pest against which this
treatment is used, are there other pests which have same name, did
this pest have any other name earlier.
*
Which are the plants affected by the pests, which parts are
attacked and in what sequence.
*
What is the mode of damage (i.e. how did farmers notice the attack
of the pest)
*
What degree of incidence is called damage, is there threshold
limit beyond which only the treatment is used, how is this limit
measured or identified, does it depend upon the extent of affected
plants, number of pests, distribution of plants in the field etc.
*
In which season does the insect attack occur most often, what are
the conditions which are most or least favourable to the incidence
of pest.
What is the configuration of sunlight, wind velocity, diurnal
temperature variations, humidity, etc. which favoured the pests.
What was the previous crop and did it have any bearing on the
incidence, did crop geometry or mixture or inter-cropping, or sowing
time have any effect on the incidence of attack.
*
Are there any other pest/predator which kill the pest, its eggs or
offspring and if so have they been identified in the field, get
description.
*
How did the farmer try to determine the control measures
Did it depend on the extent, timing or nature of damage. How many
control measures farmers knew about and what were the reasons for
preferring this particular measure.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the methods know but not
used, were there any other methods about which farmer had heard but
did not enquire.
Does he know about other farmers who use other methods or the same
method as used by the respondent.
*
How did farmers stumble upon the use of tobacco among various
things as a means of pest control
From where did he collect the tobacco powder, did he buy it, gather it
from the fields or the places where it was cured, was the residue of
green tobacco leaves used or the residue in the curing chambers or
storage chambers preferred.
How much quantity was used for varying extent of damage, did the mode
of application depend upon the nature of damage or its timing or
economic conditions of the farmer.
What is the precise formulation for use of these leaves, are these
used dry or after boiling or soaking in water or any other solution.
*
How did farmer measure the impact, was it in terms of the control
of existing damage or prevention of further damage or increasing
the capacity of the plants both affected and non-affected to
withstand the damage without affecting the productivity.
*
How many people used this measure this year, what was the cost in
terms of time, labour, money etc. which had a bearing on the use
of this method,
*
Did some people leave the use after sometime, what are the factors
which have influenced the discontinuance, what are the factors
which have prevented the neighbours of the respondent from using
this method, are there other people who used it earlier and have
now switched on to some other use.
*
What are the modifications observed in the method and mode of
application compared to the practice in the beginning.
*
Are there any side effects which are not desirable for human
beings, animals or micro-organisms in the soil.
*
What are the antedates for any undesirable side effect, does the
powder have any growth stimulating effect.
*
Did farmer observe any effect of the treatment on the subsequent
crop
*
Did farmer have plans of improving the method or any other aspect
of the treatment strategy
*
What are the long term indicators of increased vulnerability of
the crop or soil to different pests.
*
Did farmer share his experience with other farmers or did some
other people approach him to ascertain his experience.
*
Has there been any widespread reversal of control strategies in
past or present
*
Did any discussion take place in the farmers family with his wife
or other members regarding any of the above aspects.
*
Would he recommend this practice to others and if so, with what
qualifications, if any.
It is useful to recapitulate here that it is not jus the output i.e.
the documentation of local innovations which is important. The process
of enquiry, interaction with the farmers individually and in groups,
search for new conceptual relationships among old variables, feedback
to the farmers about one’s excitement over an innovation etc., are
equally important.
We should also remember that farmers may some time do the right thing
for a wrong reason. Basic issue is that in rainfed regions there is no
escape from building upon the local technical knowledge of the
peasants.
We must acknowledge by name the source of innovation (be it a villager
or group of them) and also feed back to the respondents to the extent
possible findings of our research for both ethical and scientific
purposes. Ethical because we have no right to use information provided
by a farmer poor or rich without his/her explicit permission. Only
when such a permission is unlikely to be available because it would
affect the power base of the affluent , should we make an exception.
The scientific basis of feedback is that often only when we feed back
the description does a farmer or a respondent fully understands our
purpose of asking all the questions. Then he volunteers the
information which would not be available otherwise.
Acknowledgement is important not only for satisfying above needs. It
also helps in keeping line of communication open. In Gujarat, a group
of NGOs like AKRSP, BAIF, CEE, ARCH, SRS, BSC, etc. is involved in
triggering the process of documentation of peasant innovations. There
is a need to trigger such a process in other parts as well.
* Anil K. Gupta, Professor, Centre for Management in Agriculture,
Indian Institute of Management , Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015