Unlike the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) whose views are now heard with respect by most governments and multilateral agencies, especially after being conferred the Nobel Peace Prize (with Al Gore), the ‘voice’ of the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) has been muted, much like the lives of the marginal and small farmers who have a direct stake in the way the organisation of global agricultural production is organized. A closer examination of both the reports however reveals that they are connected: climate change is going to affect livelihoods and food security of millions of farmers and fisher folk, but unless immediate steps are taken to reduce the dependence of farmers on the fossil fuel / chemical fertilizers, the agricultural operations will continue to add to the problem of global warming. Unless steps are taken to ensure that cereals, fruits, vegetables, eggs and milk is produced and consumed locally, the ‘food miles’ will add to the carbon footprints, besides being harmful to the health of the humans and animals who consume such crops.
What does the IAASTD report say? It suggests that agricultural research has to be placed in the context of growing agrarian distress in almost every part of the globe, and points out that without a radical shift from the existing focus on production related policies to those which are centred on the farmer and his livelihood system, food and nutrition security at the household level will be seriously compromised. Over four hundred experts from diverse fields have contributed to the report which was reviewed by over 64 countries, of which 58, including India, have endorsed the summary. Interestingly, the USA is one of the countries which are still dragging its feet on accepting the Recommendations even though several leading academics from the US are signatories to the Report. The report says that the priority of agricultural research should be on the ‘family farm’ and not on ‘commodity systems’. The basic difference between a family owned farm and commercial agriculture is that family farms engage in several interdependent activities, whereas commercial farms are essentially mono-cropped. However, for the last several decades, almost all research has been focused on ‘crops’, rather than on farm systems, and the focus on livelihoods has been completely ignored. This is also borne out by the annual reports of ICAR which list out the achievements by scientists and universities, but is silent about the context in which the farming is done in the country.
However the IAASTD report has not evoked any serious discussion in the country. The Farmers Commission of West Bengal has alluded to the report in its discussion papers, but other than that, in this land of seminars and policy colloquia, it seems to have been missed out. It is true that concerns has been expressed in several quarters about the mounting Fertilizer subsidy Bill, but the effort to connect the dependence of our agriculture on external inputs has not been made. Thus we find that even though the flagship programme of the Agriculture Ministry like RKVY gets about 3500 crores per year, the Fertilizer subsidy is three times! Could some of this money not have been spent on finding alternate means of making the farming system more viable? Fortunately, as pointed out by Prof C Shambhu Prasad, farming communities have devised new systems by combining traditional practices with newer discoveries in the sciences of entomology and soil systems. These have created new possibilities for the marginal and small farmers of the rain fed geographies. The most prominent of these are the SRI (system of Rice Intensification) and NPM (Non Pesticide Management), and these have achieved significant success in climate proofing agriculture and reducing the external inputs substantially. Both these have provided better returns to the farming community, even as they have enhanced soil health fertility and ensured diversity as these can be applied across varieties. The success of these technologies bears testimony to the fact that whenever scientists and extension workers were willing to engage in participatory research with the farmers, the results have been positive. Can we therefore suggest that an action plan be drawn out to reduce the dependence on fertilizer, and funds devoted to spreading information and awareness about SRI and NPM? A fraction of the fertilizer subsidy can fund an extension team in each of the seventy thousand odd Gram Panchayats in the country. This will also ensure that the funds are spread out in the hinterland, rather than on the capital intensive fertilizer industry.
This also calls for a rethink about whether the ICAR model of agricultural research should eb accepted uncritically. Prior to the establishment of agricultural universities and KVKs, many state governments also had their research establishments. Over the years, the Planning Commission and the Union Agriculture Ministry have been suggesting that the Research establishment of the Agriculture departments should be transferred to the State Agricultural Universities, which in turn are totally dependent on the ICAR funding for their research priorities. AgriMatters is compelled to argue that not only should funding for research be diversified, but also that the priorities should be decided by the farmers themselves. As Richard Bawden had suggested over two decades ago, there is an imminent need to ‘discourse’ agriculture differently. Agriculture scientists and those engaged in policy formulation should critically examine their own beliefs about what they think really constitutes development in agriculture. They have to engage in debate with themselves, and their stakeholders, about what should be as well as creating visions about what could be. Sam Higginbottom, who founded the Allahabad Agriculture University had raised these issues with Mahatma Gandhi even before Independence, but in the first decade of Independence, tenancy reforms became the main concern, and this was followed by the near unanimous support to the Green Revolution and its remarkable success in addressing the food security for the country. But now the time is ripe for the country to engage in a critical dialogue with itself, as even Prof Swaminathan, feels that somewhere along the line the Green Revolution became the Greed Revolution, and the focus has to shift to the marginal and the small farmer.