Building sustainable social and solidarity economies: Place-based and network-based strategies of alternative development organizations in India
Community Development
ISSN: 1557-5330 (Print) 1944-7485 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcod20
Ashok Kumbamu
mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
To cite this article:Ashok Kumbamu (2017): Building sustainable social and solidarity economies:
Place-based and network-based strategies of alternative development organizations in India,
Community Development
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2017.1384744
Published online: 10 Oct 2017.
Abstract
This
article critically examines and analyzes place-based as well as
network-based strategies of alternative development organizations that
claim to be building sustainable social and solidarity economies (SSE)
in the political context of neoliberal globalization. While the Indian
state and market forces are actively promoting the neoliberal agri-food
system, alternative development organizations are working with farmers
to build the SSE based on the principles of democracy, inclusiveness,
reciprocity, cooperativism, and socioecological sustainability. Using a
case study approach, this article analyzes how SSE initiatives are
aiming to reclaim control over the local agri-food sector. Specifically,
this article examines how community development organizations mobilize
farmers based on the principles of agro-ecology and the politics of seed
and food sovereignties. This article uses the Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, an alternative community development organization in south
India, as a case study.
Keywords: Agro-ecology, alternative development, community development, social and solidarity economy, seed and food sovereignties
Introduction
This
article critically examines and analyzes place-based as well as
network-based strategies of alternative development organizations that
claim to be building sustainable social and solidarity economies (SSE)
in the political context of neoliberal globalization. This article uses
the Center for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) in the state of Telangana
in south India as a case study to describe how a section of the farming
community builds strategies to mitigate the implications of neoliberal
agriculture in India.
In
Indian agriculture, neoliberal economic policies were adopted in the
early 1990s. The key aspects of these policies are the liberalization of
trade and the flow of capital investments, the deregulation of the
market system, and the privatization of public enterprises and services
to decrease fiscal deficit (Murthy, 2013; Rao, 2005; Siddiqui, 2015).
As part of the policy prescriptions of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and the World Bank, the national market for inputs and output
trade has been opened up to global market forces. Import and export
restrictions on almost all agricultural commodities have been
eliminated. This liberalization process enabled the entry of multinational seed and agro-food corporations into the country (Kumbamu, 2006).
While opening the gates wide open for the global market, the state has
gradually rolled back from the price regulation of commodities and the
quality control of agricultural input and output sectors. The basic
premise behind the process of deregulation is that markets should
be allowed to “self-regulate” by their own internal dynamics rather
than by any other external institution such as the state (Goldman, 2005).
The idea behind self-regulation is that the capitalist market system is
“the superior information processor, knowing more than any individual
ever can” (Lave, 2012, p. 21; Mirowski, 2011).
But, contrary to proponents’ claims, the deregulation of the agri-food
market system in India has resulted in rising agricultural input costs
and collapsing output prices (Winders, 2012).
Privatization
in the form of structural adjustment programs has been promoted as a
solution to the problem of fiscal deficit at the national level
(Siddiqui, 2015).
By this measure, all kinds of support systems to farmers (such as input
subsidies, price support for agricultural produce, formal institutional
credit facilities, irrigation and infrastructure development, and the
public distribution system of food grains) have been gradually declined
(Chand & Phillip, 2001; Patnaik, 2007; Ramachandran & Rawal, 2010; Rao, 2005; Taylor, 2011). In addition, state spending on agricultural research and extension services has decreased (Reddy & Mishra, 2009).
This has facilitated the growth of the private sector in research,
development, and distribution of inputs including the controversial
genetically modified (GM) seeds (Kumbamu, 2006).
All
these neoliberal policies have collectively facilitated the deeper
integration of the Indian peasantry into global economic processes.
Neoliberal proponents see this process as a boon that could boost the
productivity and production of commercial crops, which may increase
agricultural exports, and thereby agriculture’s contribution to gross
domestic product (GDP) (Hoda & Gulati, 2013).
But, paradoxically, in the process of capital accumulation,
neoliberalism with its main emphasis on commercialization has destroyed
the social fabric of the local agri-food system (Kumbamu, 2009, 2012; Reddy & Mishra, 2009; Shrivastava & Kothari, 2012). The manifestation of this politico-ecological crisis takes many extreme forms such as farmers committing suicides (Rao, 2005; Shiva, 2005). Between 1995 and 2015, about 300,000 farmers committed suicide in India (Kennedy & King, 2014; Kumbamu, 2010; Merriott, 2017; Thomas & De Tavernier, 2017).
While
the Indian state and market forces are actively promoting the
neoliberal model of the agri-food system and thousands of farmers are
committing suicide in utter despair, many farming communities with or
without the help of community development organizations are initiating
sustainable agri-food systems with a hope to reclaim their control over
the process of production, distribution, and consumption (Shrivastava
& Kothari, 2012).
They have initiated several social and solidarity economy activities
such as agricultural cooperatives, local seed production and
distribution, non-pesticide management practices, and organic food
marketing. To better understand various strategies of these initiatives,
the CSA based in the state of Telangana is used as a case study in this
article.
This
article is organized in five sections. The first section critically
analyzes a social and solidarity economy framework to better understand
the emergence of alterative initiatives as society’s response to the
self-regulatory market system. The second section discusses the
methodology and methods used for data collection and analysis in this
study. The third section presents an account of place-based and
network-based strategies of CSA that play a crucial role in building and
expanding social and solidarity economy activities in several states in
India. The fourth section highlights the socioecological implications
of CSA for farming communities. The fifth and final section provides
some conclusions.
Social and solidarity economy: A constructive resistance to neoliberalism?
Contrary
to the profit and accumulation principles of the neoliberal market
economy, the organizing principles of the social economy are reciprocity and redistribution.
From the perspective of reciprocity, “community and societal benefit is
a fundamental component of a broader socioeconomic calculus” (Lewis
& Conaty, 2012,
p. 29). Some scholars see the social economy as the society’s response
to an “erosion of the ‘social’ or universal welfare state, commitment to
social justice as desirable in itself and the principles of the
inclusive society” (Amin, Cameron, & Hudson, 2002, p. 14). For differences between the neoliberal market system and the social and solidarity economy, see Table 1.
Table 1. Differences between the neoliberal market economy and the social and solidarity economy.
The
concept of the social and solidarity economy has roots in the
cooperative and labor movements of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries (Moulaert & Ailenei, 2005; Veltmeyer, 2017).
However, social economy organizations in the global North and South
have developed new social organizations of production, distribution, and
consumption processes that are relevant to their local contexts
(Kawano, 2013; Utting, 2015).
In all these activities of the SSE, the core value is the celebration
of diversity and plurality (Gismondi, Connelly, Beckie, Markey, &
Reseland, 2016; Lewis & Conaty, 2012).
For instance, in the context of India, community-based organizations
adapt the principles of the SSE to incorporate social aspects such as
caste, gender, indigeneity, child labor, and other forms of social
exclusions in their policies and practices (Kumbamu, 2009; Shrivastava & Kothari, 2012).
Political
economist Peter Utting at UNRISD observes that some scholars project
the SSE as great success by just over emphasizing discrete best
practices at the local level, but they neglect to explain how local
social economy sustains without taking global politico-economic
processes into consideration (Utting, 2013).
Utting cautions against this trend and argues that SSE practitioners
should focus on “issues of upscaling, replication and long-term
sustainability in what are often extremely different and difficult
institutional and societal contexts” (Utting, 2013).
In practice, it is a big challenge to create an autonomous space
between the state and the market that could potentially counter the
interests of various dominant social, economic, and institutional forces
(Lewis & Conaty, 2012).
However, without working toward building a transformative
politico-economic system, the sustainability of social and solidarity
economies is always uncertain in the neoliberalizing world. (For a
critical comparative analysis of transformative politics and the social
and solidarity economy, see Veltmeyer, 2017).
Keeping this limitation in view, this article uses the social and
solidarity economy framework to understand community-based initiatives
to reclaim control over the local agri-food system in India.
Data and methods
This
article uses a multiple method approach encompassing qualitative
document analysis, in-depth interviews with key informants, and
non-participant observations (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011) adhering to the principles of the case study methodology (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2013).
The case study methodology is used to better understand the complex and
contemporary nature of a social phenomenon in its natural context.
Following Stake (1995),
the case of CSA is categorized as an “intrinsic case study,” because it
is purposively selected based on its unique characteristics in its
approach and vision to build a localized sustainable agri-food system.
The main objective of the case study approach is not to develop a
universal abstract concept or to build a generic theory, but to gain a
deeper understanding of the particularities of the case itself (Baxter
& Jack, 2008; Stake, 1995).
This
research uses document analysis as a major data collection method,
supplemented by interviews and observations. Five key functions of
document analysis are that it (a) provides critical information about
the background and context of the case; (b) allows a reflexive process
of inquiring key questions about dynamics of the case; (c) provides
supplementary data and possibilities of verification of findings from
other data sources; (d) helps researchers to track unfolding changes and
developments in the case; and (e) helps to provide information about
events that were not observable and that informants did not mention
(Bowen, 2009).
For document analysis, published and unpublished reports of CSA and
several third party evaluation reports (for example, Klaver et al., 2013; Rao, 2006; Ratnakar & Suryamani, 2010) were used.
In 2010, non-participant observations were carried out in Enabavi, a small village in the Lingala Ghanapuram mandal
(sub-district) of Janagam district, Telangana state, in which CSA is
implementing its activities in partnership with a local non-governmental
organization (NGO). The main aim of observations was to understand how
farmers build community groups and how they discuss and implement
various agro-ecological practices. A total of 10 key informant
interviews with CSA staff members, leadership, and its NGO partners were
conducted in Janagam and Hyderabad in 2010. Participants for
interviewers were recruited using the snowball sampling strategy. A
semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct interviews with key
informants. The main focus of these interviews was on exploring CSA
members’ and partners’ perceptions and understandings of alternative
development approaches, and critically examining facilitators and
barriers to the expansion and sustainability of CSA activities.
Interview
data and observational field notes were analyzed using basic
qualitative inductive techniques and data reductionist strategies
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Themes (ideas, concepts, terminology, or phrases) that emerged from
interviews and field notes were used as part of coding scheme for
document analysis. A combination of thematic analysis and content
analysis was used in the iterative process of document analysis (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
In the first step, by the open reading of documents, text or passages
that are relevant to research objective were identified. In the second
step, using the coding scheme, pertinent data was separated from
non-pertinent data in the selected text. After the process of data
reduction, forms of patterns and emerging themes were identified and
regrouped based on their characteristics and relationships. These themes
were used to construct descriptive as well as analytic accounts of the
nature and dynamics of the phenomenon. By combining all these
approaches, this research contributes to a grounded understanding of SSE
initiatives in local agri-food systems.
Social and solidarity economy initiatives: The case of the CSA
CSA
is a prominent community development organization that has been working
to build sustainable SSE in south India for nearly two decades. Since
1998, CSA, based in Hyderabad in the State of Telangana, has been
working as part of the Center for World Solidarity (CWS), a
not-for-profit organization. CWS was established by multidisciplinary
academics and community practitioners with an objective of enhancing
livelihood opportunities for marginalized sections of Indian society.
But, later, CSA separated from CWS and evolved as an independent
professional resource organization and registered as a Trust in 2004.
Since then it has been working with small and marginal farmers in
various states (Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Utter
Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh) to promote agro-ecological production and
consumption practices through community based organizations.
The
leadership of CSA believes that the introduction of the “Green
Revolution” into India in the 1960s has transformed the agri-food system
in the country and has created agro-ecological havoc in the
countryside. CSA founding members not only raised concern about the
implications of new agricultural technologies but also the way they were
developed and introduced to farmers. The Executive Director of CSA
explained:
I
am not against any technology for sure. I am only against problems.
There are certain problems whether it is a seed, pesticide, fertilizers
or anything. I feel people should know fully about which technology they
are using. People should have a choice. And, if there are better
alternative technologies, only one kind of technology should not be
imposed on them. This is what I believe and in the process of technology
development, there should be a democratic process and transparency. I
think that’s something, which is very critical. (Interview with the
Executive Director of CSA, December 03, 2010)
To address various socioecological crises in agriculture, CSA aims to promote a two-pronged strategy: (a) social innovations based on farmers’ agro-ecological knowledge and their use of nature’s products and processes; and (b) institutional innovations
such as organizing agricultural producers into groups and cooperatives
on the one hand, and developing coalition movements at regional and
national levels to influence civil society and state polices on the
other. CSA members strongly believe that the two-pronged strategy will
help farmers to gain control over the entire production, distribution,
and consumption processes of the local agri-food system. In the process
of building a self-reliant farming community, CSA has been initiating
and supporting place-based as well as network-based activities.
To
expand agro-ecological practices, CSA developed a Community Managed
Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA) model using a community-based extension
system. The CMSA model focuses on both the economic dimension (reducing
the cost of cultivation through non-pesticide management methods) as
well as the ecological dimension (promoting biodiversity, restoring
ecological balance, and promoting green manure and dung-based
inoculants). Overall, this model emphasizes the importance of reducing
dependency on external inputs by using locally available natural
resources. In addition to this, this model aims at reviving local
knowledge systems, the mechanisms of knowledge sharing, and the peoples’
institutions of natural resource management. To implement the CMSA
model, CSA identified gaps in forward and backward linkages in the value
chain of agricultural products from the pre-production stage to the
post-production stage (Table 2).
Table 2. CSA’s activities to build a sustainable value-added food chain.
To
address those gaps, CSA has adopted several place-based and
network-based strategies. Alternative development organizations have
been using various place-based and network-based strategies to produce a
counter discourse to hegemonic development models as well as to
implement sustainable SSE initiatives. Critical anthropologist Arthur
Escobar suggests place-based strategies “rely on the attachment to
territory and culture,” whereas network-based strategies “enable social
movements to engage in the production of locality by enacting a politics
of scale from below” (Escobar, 2001,
p. 161). In fact, networks act as instruments for “the production of
discourses and practices that connect nodes in a discontinuous space”
(Escobar, 2001, p. 169).
Place-based activities
CSA
leaders firmly believe that any technological intervention should first
of all consider local socioeconomic and politico-ecological conditions
that could potentially influence and/or get influenced by the new
technology. With this guiding principle, CSA has initiated several
community-based activities.
Building farmers’ institutions
In
2010, CSA started organizing farmers into agricultural producer groups
to establish a community-based learning and sharing system, to enhance
community participation and collective action, and to instill
accountability and ownership in farmers’ institutions. First, all
identified marginalized farmers were organized into self-help groups
(SHGs) at the village level. Then all SHGs were combined to form the
Village Organization (VO), which identifies one of its participating
members as a Village Activist. Every five VOs were grouped to form a
cluster, which is supported by a Cluster Activist. At the Mandal level, all VOs were federated into the Mandal Farmer Federation. All the mandal
level federations were further federated into the District Farmer
Federation. At the district level, a few successful farmers were
selected as Community Resource Persons to support and promote
sustainable agricultural practices. In this entire process, CSA worked
with various government agencies and other NGOs in building SHGs.
CSA
has adapted a village immersion method for the identification of
villages to implement its CMSA model. In village immersion, villages are
identified based on the expressed interest of the members of the
Village Organization in the sub-committee meeting at the Mandal Farmer
Federation level. In these meetings, Community Resource Persons, Cluster
Activist, and District Project Manager discuss the agricultural
situation in villages and share learnings from the implementation of
CMSA in other villages. This program identifies interested farmers and
organizes them into the Farmer Field School (FFS) groups. During the
process of village immersion, they also do “resource mapping” to
identify locally available resources (number and structure of
landholdings, soil quality, water bodies, grazing lands, and forest
area), cropping pattern, agro-biodiversity, and the local knowledge
system (best practices and innovative methods).
The
Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is a community-based learning
approach originally designed and promoted by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (Pontius, Diltis, &
Bartlett, 2002). CSA adapted the FFS approach and established the Organic Farmer Schools
to train farmers (both women and men) regularly on non-pesticide
management (NPM), soil and water management, seed production,
biodiversity conservation, and other agro-ecological farming practices.
To create conducive environment for mutual learning in the Organic
Farmer Schools, CSA organized farmers into relatively homogeneous
groups. They meet every week in one of the members’ fields to learn and
discuss what appropriate actions should be taken to manage the farm. The
Village Activist and Cluster Activist organize these FFS events.
Sometimes Community Resource Persons may also participate in collective
decision-making process. As part of this community learning process,
social innovations from the field are collected, refined, “validated,”
and shared back to farmers through FFS. This “field-to-field” method
helps to revive local knowledge systems and sustainable agricultural
practices, and enhances farmers’ empowerment through capacity building.
In the entire process, CSA also works with other local NGOs, which have
been working in the region on similar issues. The following paragraphs
focus on some of the institutional innovations that CSA has developed to
promote more holistic, humanistic, sustainable, and reciprocal
activities on the ground.
Community-based agricultural inputs and eco-enterprises
With
the increasing commodification of seed, not only seed security but also
farmers’ knowledge systems are endangered. CSA has developed a special
program to save community seed and share them with or sell them at a
cheaper price to other farmers within their network of villages. In
their program, first, they conduct a need assessment and identify
villages where farmers do not have sufficient quantity of their own
seeds. Then, based on the calculation of the requirement of seed (in
terms of varieties and quantity), CSA trains farmers to produce good
quality seed. This community seed production and saving activity reduces
farmers’ dependency on multinational corporations for seed. To further
scale-up seed bank activities, CSA is working to develop the Open Source
Seed Network with an aim to reclaim farmers’ control over seed
production and development of new local varieties, sustaining local
knowledge systems and conserving biodiversity. For a detailed account of
the politico-ecological implications of “biological open source” and
“seed sovereignty,” see Kloppenburg (2010).
Non-pesticide management (NPM) shops
In
order to meet the growing demand for NPM and to promote eco-enterprises
in the input sector, CSA has been promoting NPM shops at the village
level through self-help groups. In its project area, by 2014, CSA
established 1944 NPM shops. CSA provides scientific input (such as the
preparation of botanic extracts) to farmers through the organic farmer
schools and financial support through linkages with various government
agencies and rural developmental programs. Working with government
agencies is not an easy task because their “priorities” and CSA’s
objectives are not the same, and sometimes even contradictory. As a
member of CSA mentioned:
We worked with the
department of agriculture, we worked with the agricultural university,
we tried to work with the livelihoods department, rural development, so
many other departments… cutting across groups we started proposing that
this is possible; we can do this kind of thing. Agriculture departments
and agricultural universities were not readily taking this up mainly
because of their hangover on technology. They feel they are the
technology generators. Their focus is always on new technology
development rather than solving the problem. Solving problems or
improving livelihoods of the people is not their priority at all.
(Interview with a CSA member, December 05, 2010)
Community financing
CSA
also established a Value Chain Fund (VCF) to support eco-enterprises
whose aim is to promote sustainable agricultural activities. It has set
up 1.5 million Indian rupees (about US $24,000) as seed money for farmer
cooperatives to help them address critical gaps in their operations.
CSA lends money to cooperatives without interest for one year and
charges 10% interest from the second year onwards. This helps
cooperatives to establish financial transactions, which help them to
apply for bigger loans from formal financial institutions.
Custom hiring centers
In
partnership with government agencies, CSA has established Custom Hiring
Centers to help marginal and small farmers, who have no access to
agricultural implements. These centers rent implements for plowing,
sowing, weeding, harvesting, and post-harvesting activities to needy
farmers at a price, which is often lower than the market price, set by
the community.
Linking producer and consumer
Over
the years of experience, the members of CSA learned that without
connecting farmer cooperatives to alternative market systems, it would
be difficult to sustain and expand agro-ecological production processes.
With this lesson from its practice, farmer cooperatives have
collectively created an aggregator producer company and registered it as
Sahaja Aharam (Natural Food) Producer Company Private Limited. The objective of Sahaja Aharam
Producer Company is to address the gaps in the forward and backward
linkages of the value chain of agricultural products. Particularly, in
the post-production phase, Sahaja Aharam helps each and every
cooperative in planning for procurement, aggregation, post-harvest
management, grading, and packing. In this entire process of bringing
agricultural producers closer to consumers, CSA works with various local
business partners and NGOs. With a similar strategy, CSA is also
working in the seed sector. It is supporting farmers in seed production,
processing, distribution, and marketing. In the area of knowledge
management, CSA is actively working in capacity building, documentation
of best practices, and developing alternative policy proposals based on
their social and institutional innovations.
Network-based activities
While
working with farming communities on the ground, CSA also participates
in network building to sensitize and educate civil society organizations
and the general public about sustainable agri-food alternatives. It
also works with alternative policy lobbying groups with an objective to
influence or pressurize the state to formulate pro-farmer agricultural
policies. Overall, CSA as a member of the alternative agri-food movement
has been working toward constructing alternative discourses and policy
options in order to build a network that facilitates the growth of local
sustainable agri-food systems.
Influencing civil society and public institutions
CSA
has been working with various alternative development organizations at
the regional and national level to influence civil society, public
policy planning institutions, and research and development organizations
about possibilities of sustainable agricultural initiatives and its
implications for food security, seed security, public health, and the
environment. For this purpose, CSA uses print and electronic media, the
Internet (for example, an online web channel to promote sustainable
agricultural practices, http://krishi.tv), and social media. It also publishes alternative policy briefings and a monthly journal, Tolakari
(meaning “new beginning”), in the Telugu language. With all these
efforts, CSA’s work also influenced some government departments/programs
such as the Society for Elimination of Rural Development and the
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which helped
in scaling-up some of CSA’s initiatives in other parts of the country.
In
the context of the social economy, scaling-up does not mean the
imposition of policies or strategies from above and the expansion of
organizational operations, but rather focuses on escalating the impact
of social innovation within the sector to other communities and regions
(Gismondi et al., 2016; Straith & Gismondi, 2014).
CSA aims to scale-up its social innovations to other geographical
locations in order to build a broader and stronger network of
alternative agri-food systems and to create place-based mechanisms for a
sustainable transition. The FAO also recognized the value of CSA’s
work. To better understand how alternative agri-food models work on the
ground and what barriers and facilitators the organization is facing in
the process of scaling-up its activities, the FAO asked the CSA team to
study and document their experiences and lessons learned from them. The
World Bank also conducted a study to examine whether and how community
managed sustainable agricultural practices are creating food and seed
securities for the poorest of the poor. Although CSA does not get any
direct financial support from global financial institutions such as the
World Bank, it adopted a transparency approach to work with any public
institution without compromising its core principles to show them what
new value agro-ecological approaches can create in local communities in
general, and in farmers’ lives in particular. This strategy helps CSA to
rapidly expand its mission and activities to new geographical areas and
work with other grassroots organizations in the country.
CSA
also worked with semi-governmental organizations such as the Society
for Elimination of Rural Development funded by the World Bank and the
Central Government of India. This collaboration helped scaling-up CSA’s
activities across Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. But, CSA withdrew from
this project when it realized that the farming community in the project
area could manage and sustain ecological agricultural practices without
its continuous support and any further intervention. These activities
help CSA construct a discourse of sustainable social economy and
demonstrate the value of alternative framing systems on the ground, and
build a network of community-based organizations to further expand its
mission, that is, building a localized sustainable agri-food system.
Role of CSA in building alliance for sustainable and holistic agriculture
Alliance
for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) is a national alliance
of about 400 grassroots organizations. ASHA has mobilized these
organizations nationwide around three core aspects: food, farmers, and
freedom. CSA has played an important role in mobilizing various
alternative development organizations to form a strong network to
increase pressure on State governments as well as the Central government
to create a new Kisan Swaraj (farmers’ self-rule) policy. ASHA
declares:
The new policy framework (Kisan Swaraj Policy) should be based on the four pillars of economic sustainability of agriculture-based livelihoods, ecological sustainability to preserve the productive natural resources, people’s control over agricultural resources including land, water, forest, seed and knowledge, in addition to ensuring non-toxic, diverse, nutritious and adequate food for all Indians. (Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture [ASHA], 2010, emphasis original)
Because
of ASHA’s continuous efforts of engagement with various socio-political
agencies (such as government departments, the scientific community, and
civil society groups), 11 state governments in India are considering
developing standard policies on organic farming. Apart from influencing
some sections of civil society and political establishment, CSA also
played a pivotal role in a civil society coalition against the
introduction of GM eggplant. Increased pressure from the coalition
movement led the Indian state to declare a ten-year moratorium on GM
eggplant.
As
part of network building, CSA also works with Action Aid, Caring
Citizens Collective on farmer suicides, OXFAM, South Asian Alliance for
Poverty Eradication, Deccan Development Society (DDS), and many other
national and international regional organizations. But, to implement its
place-based strategies, it partners with several grassroots
organizations, such as Kheti Virasat Mission in Punjab, Center for Rural
Operations and Programs Society (CROPS) and Peoples Action for Creative
Education (PEACE) in Telangana, Rural and Environment Development
Society (REDS) and Accion Fraterna Ecology Center in Andhra Pradesh, and
Gorakhpur, Environmental Action Group in Utter Pradesh. All these
activities of CSA have various socioeconomic and politico-ecological
implications for farmers. The following section summarizes some of the
significant implications of CSA for sustainable agriculture at different
levels.
Implications of CSA for sustainable agriculture
CSA
in its various published and unpublished documents claims that within
the first 10 years, its agro-ecological model was adopted by farmers in
11,000 villages and implemented to cultivate 3.6 million hectares in the
states of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Punjab. With the
scaling-up of NPM practices, pesticide use in CSA project villages has
decreased by over 50% from 2005–2006 to 2010–2011 in the united Andhra
Pradesh state. Consequently, as CSA claims, this has reduced the cost of
cultivation for many crops. Moreover, it not only made farming and food
safer, but also resulted in net savings of about Rs. 5000 (US$78) to
Rs. 13,000 (US$204) per acre. In the CSA project area, the number of
cases of hospitalization because of pesticide poisoning also decreased.
In the promotion of healthy local food, Sahaja Aharam plays a very important role. As of 2014, the total beneficiaries of Sahaja Aharam
are approximately 3000 small and marginal farmers in 112 villages in
the states of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Maharastra. To better
understand the concrete impact of CSA on farmers, Enabavi is one of the
best examples to examine.
Enabavi, a chemical-free, GM-free, and farmer suicide-free village
In
the Janagam district of Telangana, CSA in association with the Center
for Rural Operations and Programs Society (CROPS) helped transform a
chemical intensive agriculture village, Enabavi in Lingala Ghanapuram manadal,
into a “chemical-free” and “GM-free” village. In Enabavi, a majority of
farmers adopted GM cotton in 2003 and 2004, but completely abandoned it
from 2005 onwards because of CSA’s interventions. In this village, CSA
and CROPS wanted to build a model that could be shown to other villages
that chemical-free farming is possible and feasible. They initially
focused on pesticides, then moved on to other inputs such as
fertilizers, water, and seed. As a member of CROPS mentioned:
No
dependency on pesticide. That’s the main driver and on that we also
helped farmers to have their own seed, their own soil fertility
measures, water management, and several other components were built on
that. But the main driver was moving away from pesticide use and then
managing without using pesticide. That was the major thing. (Interview
with a member of CROPS, November 18, 2010)
In Enabavi, there
were only 51 farm households, a majority of them small farmers belonging
to “backward” castes. This somewhat homogeneous socioeconomic condition
provided very conducive circumstances for CROPS to intervene into their
agricultural practices and motivate them toward sustainable
agriculture. The national media touted this a “new revolution” and
proclaimed that: “Enabavi farmers create history” (Venkateshwarlu, 2006).
In
this village, there are no farmer suicides at all. Some governmental
and non-governmental organizations also consider Enabavi as a model, and
bring farmer leaders from this village to other villages in other
districts in the State and even to other States to explain the process
and experiences of their agricultural transformation and its benefits to
their community. In this context, it is important to note that although
CROPS is instrumental in the “chemical-free” village project, the
intellectual input of CSA, the Center for World Solidarity (CWS), and
funding from Aide à l’enfance de l’Inde (AEI), Luxembourg, also
played very crucial role. This new experiment of sustainable
agricultural initiatives has generated much curiosity among many
scholars. In 2006, a group of scientists and critical agrarian scholars
have visited Enabavi to “know ground realities first hand” (Rao, 2006) in the village. Reflecting on the nature of socioeconomic and ecological transformation in that village, Rao (2006) reported:
Until
five years ago, Yaenabaavi [Enabavi] farmers were heavily indebted to
the local money lenders but are now debt free and invest on cultivation
inputs without borrowing. To the question, if they were receiving
any subsidy, in cash or kind, from CROPS, CWS, CAS and AEI, the answer
was an emphatic “No, only advice and guidance.” Yaenabaavi is locally
involved in seed development, except for non-Bt cotton. Since all crops
are under only organic and NPM cultivation practices, Yaenabaavi farmers
are trying to obtain Organic Certification of their produce… [They]
have started a Farmer Resource Centre to help the farmers of other
villages in the area. (Rao, 2006)
Overall,
Enabavi farmers have created a new discourse and new practices of
sustainable agriculture and cultivated a hope amidst agrarian distress.
Even government agencies such as the Society for Elimination of Rural
Poverty (SERP) have projected Enabavi as a model to scale-up to address
the ongoing socioecological crises in the agri-food system. (For an
account of rural transformation in Enabavi, see, for example, Eenadu [2011].)
Although
CSA has been expanding its activities to new regions in the country, it
has to overcome many sociopolitical and institutional barriers in its
journey toward the sustainable agri-food system. Unlike in Enabavi,
farmers in many villages in Telangana (or in any part of the country)
are stratified in terms of class, caste, and gender. As CSA leadership
identifies, it is a big challenge to bring all farmers together and make
them to participate in the social economy, because class, caste, and
gender differences always become more pronounced in any community
activity. In such a social context, CSA invests a lot of time and energy
to understanding the local situation and educating or influencing
farmers about the new value that agro-ecological practices and the
social economy brings to their lives and communities. Moreover,
according to CSA members, local seed and agri-chemical business groups
always discourage farmers from participating in CSA activities, because
the promotion of agro-ecology approaches hampers their financial
interests. In addition to this, lack of continuous support from the
state in general, and agricultural and rural departments in particular,
puts a lot of burden on CSA in mobilizing all kinds of resources (such
as financial, human, and technical resources) from non-state and
non-market actors and institutions.
Conclusion
This
article examined the processes and strategies of a social and
solidarity economy organization that has been working to develop an
alternative agri-food system in India with an aim to reclaim food and
seed securities. The case study of CSA offers us insights into how
social and solidarity economy organizations create new socioecological
as well as economic value in agriculture and how farming communities
work together to build resilience and sustainable survival strategies.
As social historian Karl Polanyi (2014,
p. 136) argued, “the inclusion of man and nature into a self-regulating
system is, of course, utopian. No such system is possible in practice.
They would be both destroyed.” The overarching objective of CSA reflects
Polanyi’s concern about the increasing control of the market economy
over nature and society.
The
community managed sustainable agriculture approach implemented by CSA
has facilitated building farmer institutions at different levels, which
could enhance farmers’ bargaining position within the community. These
organizations also enabled farmers to get access to many services and
programs such as the Farmer Field Schools, community credit, high
quality agricultural inputs through a network of community seed banks,
and agricultural implements from Custom Hiring Centers. Eco-enterprises
and Sahaja Aharam Producers Company provide farmers alternative
market venues, and also connect them directly to consumers. All these
services to farmers provide a sense of security and resilience against
the external shocks created by the market system and the state
apparatus.
It
is important to note that although NGOs come under the broader concept
of the social economy, all NGOs may not practice the principles of the
social economy, because these organizations function based on their
sources of funding, self-interest, and ideological orientation. Some
scholars consider that the social economy “encompasses the work of any
democratically controlled organization whose mission is both social and
economic in nature” (Gismondi et al., 2016,
p. 9). As all NGO activities should not be considered as the social
economy, all social economy initiatives also may not have sustainability
dimension. But, CSA has been consciously trying to converge the social
economy and sustainability in practice.
CSA
has developed a two-pronged approach (place-based and network-based
strategies) in the process of building self-protective and subsistence
communities and reconstructing social fabric within communities. This is
a difficult political task in the current model of the corporate
agri-food system and the political space of neoliberalism. To sustain
this approach while building a local agri-food system, it is crucial to
increase pressure on the state to reorient its policies toward
revitalizing rural communities on sustainability principles, and
participate in political activities that challenge government’s lopsided
development policies and corporate domination. CSA is taking up this
challenge in different forms (for example, as a key player in the Kisan
Swaraj movement), but it still has to go a long way to become a
significant force that could vehemently challenge anti-farmer state
policies and exploitative market strategies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
- Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture. (2010). Towards a Kisan Swaraj policy. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/Towards_a_Kisan_Swaraj_Policy_ASHA_2010.pdf
- Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (2002). Placing the social economy. London: Routledge.
- Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13, 544–559.
- Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9, 27–40. doi:10.3316/qrj0902027 ,
- Chand, R., & Phillip, L.M. (2001). Subsidies and support in agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly, 36, 3014–3016.
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781452230153 ,
- Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2013). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. London: Sage.
- Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.).
Chicago ,IL : University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226206868.001.0001 , - Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography, 20, 139–174. doi:10.1016/s0962-6298(00)00064-0 ,
- Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 80–92. doi:10.1177/160940690600500107 ,
- Gismondi, M., Connelly, S., Beckie, M., Markey, S., & Reseland, M. (2016). Scaling up: The convergence of social economy and sustainability. Athabasca: AU Press.10.15215/aupress/9781771990219.01 ,
- Goldman, M. (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Hoda, A., & Gulati, A. (2013). India’s agricultural trade policy and sustainable development: ICTSD programme on agricultural trade and sustainable development (Issue paper no. 49). Geneva, Switzerland: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
- Kawano, E. (2013). Social solidarity economy: Toward convergence across continental divides. Geneva: UNRISD. Retrieved January 18, 2014, from http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/newsview.nsf/%28httpNews%29/F1E9214CF8EA21A8C1257B1E003B4F65?OpenDocument
- Kennedy, J., & King, L. (2014). The political economy of farmers’ suicides in India: Indebted cash-crop farmers with marginal landholdings explain state-level variation in suicide rates. Globalization and Health, 10, 1–9. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-10-16 ,
- Klaver, D., Desalos, C., Hofstede, M., Wadhwa, S., Pandey, R., Madaan, A., & Mohapatra, B.P. (2013). Baseline
report for India – Centre for Sustainable Agriculture. Wageningen UR
Centre for Development Innovation, India Development Foundation,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
- Kloppenburg, J. (2010). Impeding dispossession, enabling repossession: Biological open source and the recovery of seed sovereignty. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10, 367–388. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00275.x ,
- Kumbamu, A. (2006). Ecological modernization and the “Gene Revolution”: The case study of Bt cotton in India. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 17, 7–31. doi:10.1080/10455750601004442 ,
- Kumbamu, A. (2009). Subaltern strategies and autonomous community building: A critical analysis of the network organization of sustainable agriculture initiatives in Andhra Pradesh. Community Development Journal, 44, 336–350. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsp024 ,
- Kumbamu, A. (2010). Grounding
global seeds: A contextual comparison of the politico-ecological
implications of genetically modified crops for farming communities in
Alberta (Canada) and Andhra Pradesh (India) (Doctoral thesis). University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
- Kumbamu, A. (2012). Agri-food sector’s response to the triple crisis: Sustaining local social initiatives in Andhra Pradesh, India. Development, 55, 104–111. doi:10.1057/dev.2011.101 ,
- Lave, R. (2012). Neoliberalism and the production of environmental knowledge. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 3, 19–38. doi:10.3167/ares.2012.030103 ,
- Lewis, M., & Conaty, P. (2012). The resilience imperative. Gabriola Iland: New Society.
- Merriott, D. (2017). Factors associated with the farmer suicide crisis in India. Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health, 6, 217–227. doi:10.1016/j.jegh.2016.03.003 ,
- Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674061132 ,
- Moulaert, F., & Ailenei, O. (2005). Social economy, third sector and solidarity relations: A conceptual synthesis from history to present. Urban Studies, 42, 2037–2053. doi:10.1080/00420980500279794 ,
- Murthy, R.R.V. (2013). Political economy of agrarian crisis and subsistence under neoliberalism in India. The NEHU Journal, 11, 19–33.
- Patnaik, U. (2007). New data on the arrested development of capitalism in Indian agriculture. Social Scientist, 35, 4–23.
- Polanyi, K. (2014). For a new west. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Pontius, J., Diltis, R., & Bartlett, A. (Eds.). (2002). From farmer field school to community IPM: Ten years of IPM training in Asia. Bangkok: FAO.
- Ramachandran, V.K., & Rawal, V. (2010). The impact of liberalization and globalization on India’s agrarian economy. Global Labor Journal, 1, 56–91. doi:10.15173/glj.v1i1.1065 ,
- Rao, H.C.H. (2005). Agriculture, food security, poverty, and environment. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Rao, K. (2006). Organic cultivation and non-pesticidal management at Yaenabaavi, Andhra Pradesh, India: The story of the farmers. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/special-topics_views_organic_cultivation_in_india1.html
- Ratnakar, R., & Suryamani, S. (2010). Third party evaluation of Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY): Community managed organic farming implemented by SERP. Society for Elimination of Rural Society, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
- Reddy, N.D., & Mishra, S. (2009). Agrarian crisis in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
- Shiva, V. (2005). Globalization’s new wars, seeds, water and life forms. New Delhi: Women Unlimited.
- Shrivastava, A., & Kothari, A. (2012). Churning the earth. The making of global India. Delhi: Penguin India.
- Siddiqui, K. (2015). Agrarian crisis and transformation in India. Journal of Economics and Political Economy, 2, 3–22.
- Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Straith, D., & Gismondi, M. (2014). The scaling imperative. Retrieved January 16, 2016, from http://www.sigeneration.ca/author/dstraith/
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
- Taylor, M. (2011). ‘Freedom from poverty is not for free’: Rural development and the microfinance crisis in Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Agrarian Change, 11, 484–504. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0366.2011.00330.x ,
- Thomas, G., & De Tavernier, J. (2017). Farmer-suicide in India: Debating the role of biotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13, 1–21. doi:10.1186/s40504-017-0052-z ,
- Utting, P. (2013). Social and solidarity economy: A pathway to socially sustainable development. Geneva: UNRISD.
- Utting, P. (Ed.). (2015). Social and solidarity economy: Beyond the fringe. London: Zed Books.
- Veltmeyer, H. (2017). The social economy in Latin America as alternative development. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 1–17. doi:10.1080/02255189.2017.1294052 ,
- Venkateshwarlu, K. (2006, October 12). Enabavi farmers create history. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/enabavi-farmers-create-history/article3060052.ece
- Winders, B. (2012). The food crisis and the deregulation of agriculture. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 18, 83–95.
- Green Village: Enebavi. (2011, May 15). Eenadu. Eenadu Sunday special. Retrieved from http://csa-india.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GREEN-Village-enabavi.pdf
- Yin, R.K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
No comments:
Post a Comment