R ainfed areas, constituting the major poverty geography of the country, faced a

historical neglect and discrimination in terms of receiving public support and

investments; Rainfed-farmer, in particular, is facing the brunt of this neglect. The
crisis is no longer an issue of supporting agriculture; with unprecedented levels of
farmers’ distress, it has evolved into a livelihood issue affecting millions of farmers.

At present 60 percent of Indian and 80 percent of the world agriculture is

un-irrigated. After having developed all water resources, 50 percent of agriculture
will still continue to be rainfed. In our country, 86 percent pulses, 77 percent oil seeds
and 50 percent cereals are contributed by rainfed agriculture. International trade in
oil seeds is escalating thus demands on rainfed agriculture would increase.

Public support in terms of investments, institutions, subsidies in fertilizers and other

inputs fostered the paradigm of green-revolution intensively in the well endowed
areas of the country. By its very logic, it has by-passed the major poverty stricken
rainfed areas and people dependent on them, as major part of the incentives and
investments was used by farmers who have access to irrigation.

Recognizing this historical need for restructuring the public policy, support systems
and incentives available for rainfed farming, Indian Council of Agriculture Research
(ICAR), WASSAN and CSA have jointly organized a workshop entitled ‘New
Paradigm for Rainfed Farming – Redesigning Support Systems and Incentives’ at
New Delhi from 27th to 29th September, 2007.

On the basis of the scattered field experiences and research outputs across the
country, the workshop deliberated intensively to evolve a framework for establishing
appropriate public investments, support systems and incentives for revitalising
sustainable rainfed farming systems and livelihoods in rainfed areas.
 Proceedings of the National Workshop
on
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Date:
27th - 29th September, 2007
Venue:
IARI, NASC Complex, New Delhi
Organized by
Supported by
Proceedings of the National Wokrshop on
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Redesigning Support Systems and Incentives
27th - 29th September, 2007
IARI, NASC Complex, New Delhi
July 2008
No. of Copies: 1000
For Private Circulation only
Compilation and Draft : Ramesh Kumar
Critical Inputs : Dr. Sanghi, Ravindra and
respective authors of various presentations
Editing : Ramesh Kumar and Suresh
Layout : T. Ravi and N. Chandra Sekhar
Published by :
Watershed Support Services and Activities Network
12-13-450, Street No. 1
Tarnaka, Secunderabad - 500 017
Phones : 040 - 27015295/ 6
e mail : wassan@eth.net
web : www.wassan.org
Printed at Charitha Impressions, Hyd. Ph: 27678411
 Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
INAUGURAL SESSION
Welcome and introductory remarks by Dr. Nawab Ali 2
In search of a new paradigm for self-reliant development of rainfed farming -
‘Capitalization on Complementarities’ by Dr. Mangal Rai 3
Policy reforms at national level for enhancing inclusive growth in rainfed areas
during XI Plan by Prof. V.S. Vyas 4
Strategies for enhancing growth in Agriculture during XI plan -
Transferring ‘Resources’ to Micro level is the Key by Dr. Abhijit Sen 7
SPECIAL SESSION
Sustainable development of rainfed areas -
Need to redefine agrarian relations by Shri B.N. Yugandhar 10
Challenges before National Rainfed Area Authority in revitalizing
Rainfed Agriculture - Convergence and Prioritization are key issues by Dr. J.S. Samra 12
SESSION – II : ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SCENARIO IN RAINFED AREAS
Synthesis of innovative experiences for development of rainfed agriculture
in the context of emerging crisis by Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu 16
Analysis of current Support Systems and Incentives for Rainfed Farming and
Need for a Differentiated Approach by Shri A. Ravindra 19
SESSION – III : NEW PARADIGM FOR RAINFED FARMING
Decentralized food security in rainfed areas involving different types of
millets and pulses by Shri P.V. Satheesh 26
Low external input based sustainable agriculture (LEISA) –
Synthesis of experiences from India and abroad by Dr. Arun Balamatti 27
Overview of field experiences with IPM and INM approaches by Shri W.R. Reddy 28
A New Paradigm for Rainfed Agriculture for Improving Livelihoods
and Sustainable Development in India by Dr. S.P.Wani 30
Organic farming through various initiatives in India - From Impoverishment to
Empowerment with Productivity, Profitability and Sustainability for Farmers and
Farming by Shri Ashok Bang 31
Building a farmers owned company (Chetna) producing and
trading fair trade-organic products by Shri H Lanting 33
Beyond Certified Organic Farming: An emerging paradigm for
Rainfed Agriculture by Dr. N.K. Sanghi 35
 SESSION – IV : CRITICAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR UPSCALING
SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCES ON 6 MAJOR THEMES ASSOCIATED
WITH RAINFED FARMING
Theme: A. Pest management through non pesticidal methods
Pest management through non-pesticidal methods –
a continuing journey by Dr. M.S. Chari 42
Analysis of existing policies and programmes for pest management in agriculture –
limitations and opportunities by Shri D.V. Raidu 45
Theme: B. Seeds in the hands of the Community
Community managed seed bank in rainfed areas – need for new mechanisms
and infrastructural support by Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu 51
Analysis of existing policies and programmes under seed sector –
limitations and opportunities by Dr. K. Tirupataiah 53
Theme: C. Enhancement of Organic Matter in Soils
Improving Soil Productivity through Enhancement of
Organic Matter in Soils by Dr. J. Venkateswarlu 58
Enhancing Soil-Organic Matter in SAT-scientific evidence and
policy support needed for scale-up by Dr. O.P. Rupela 60
Theme: D. Separate Policy for Water Resource in Rainfed Areas
Analysis of Existing Support Systems for Water Resource Development in
Rainfed and Irrigated Areas by Dr. K.V. Rao 67
Emerging Experiences on Sustainable Use of Water Resource in Rainfed Areas:
Social Regulations as an Approach; Field Experiences by Shri SK. Anwar 70
Theme: E.Self reliant development through sustainable Community based Organizations
and reforms in management of Institutional Credit
Sustainable development of Agriculture through SHGs and their Federations –
a case study in Andhra Pradesh by Shri T. Vijay Kumar 78
Institutional Credit for Rainfed Areas – Issues and Concerns by Shri P.V.S. Surya Kumar 82
Theme: F. Self reliant development of Small Ruminants with Resource Poor Families
Analysis of Existing Policies and Schemes for Development of
Small Ruminants by Dr. Piedy Sreeramulu 86
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Community Managed Development of Small Ruminants –

Redesigning of Support Systems by Dr. A.K. Joseph 89
iv
SESSION-V : GROUP WORK ON SELECTED THEMES 95
PLENARY SESSION : PRESENTATIONS AND HIGHLIGHTS OF GROUP WORK
Theme – 1: Agriculture in rainfed areas: soil – pest management by Dr. B. Venkateswarlu 98
Theme – 2: Water for rainfed areas by Shri K.J. Joy 99
Theme – 3: Re-looking Livestock in rainfed areas by Dr. V. Padma Kumar 100
Theme – 4: Institutions and credits for rainfed areas development by Dr. Amita Shah 102
CONCLUDING SESSION
A New Paradigm: What is emerging? by Shri A. Ravindra 108
Need to link macro indicators with micro imperatives by Dr. Amita Shah 109
How do we go forward: Some suggestions by Dr. N.K. Sanghi 110
ANNEXURES
Schedule of Agenda 115
List of participants 121
Group Work on Specific Themes - List of Members 130
Glossary 131

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

v
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
 Executive Summary
Context
R ainfed areas, constituting the major poverty
geography of the country, are facing a historical
neglect and discrimination in terms of
receiving public support and investments.
Rainfed-farmers, in particular, are facing the
brunt of this neglect. The crisis is no longer an
issue of supporting agriculture. With
unprecedented levels of farmers’ distress, it is
now a livelihood issue affecting millions of
farmers.
At present 60 percent of Indian and 80 percent
of the world agriculture is un-irrigated. After
having developed all water resources, 50
percent of agriculture will still continue to be
rainfed. In our country, 86 percent pulses, 77
percent oil seeds and 50 percent cereals are
contributed by rainfed agriculture. International
trade in oil seeds is escalating thus demands on
rainfed agriculture would increase.
Public support in terms of investments,
institutions and subsidies in fertilizers and other
inputs (electricity, micro irrigation, horticulture,
irrigation water supply, credit, price support
etc;) fostered the paradigm of green revolution
in the well endowed areas of the country. By its
very logic, it has by-passed the major poverty
stricken rainfed areas and people dependent on
them.
Recognizing this historical need for
restructuring the public policy, support systems
and incentives available for rainfed farming the
Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR),
WASSAN and CSA jointly organized a
workshop entitled ‘New Paradigm for Rainfed
Farming – Redesigning Support Systems and
Incentives’ at New Delhi from 27 th to 29 th
September, 2007.
On the basis of the scattered field experiences
and research outputs across the country, the
workshop deliberated intensively to evolve a
framework for establishing appropriate public
investments, support systems and incentives for
revitalising sustainable rainfed farming systems
and livelihoods in rainfed areas.
Objectives:
● Analyzing present scenario in rainfed
areas with particular reference to
emerging farmers’ crisis and relevance of
existing support systems
● Arriving at a new developmental paradigm,
emerging through formal and informal
R&D, that has potential of addressing the
existing crisis among rainfed farmers
● Analyzing present framework of support
systems and incentives in rainfed areas and
assessing the need for a differentiated
support systems
● Understanding the significance of CBOs in
institutionalizing the new paradigm and
facilitating greater degree of self-reliance in
the overall development
Workshop design
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Present policy framework and reforms
envisaged were discussed in the opening and
special sessions. It was recognized that there
was a serious lacuna in the policy focus on
rainfed agriculture as compared to irrigated
agriculture. However, there was a considerable
clarity about where the things were going
wrong and also what could address the
problems; It was strongly felt that there was a
vii
 need to act upon it. Specific pointers were also
made related to macro economic policy
considerations that include Input and Output
Policies, Trade Policy, Credit Policy and Risk
Mitigation.
An analysis of the existing scenario in rainfed
areas and an overview of the emerging
paradigm shift were shared in the session II.
The need for a separate agricultural policy for
rainfed areas and the desired shift in the ways
of carrying out research and development in
rainfed areas was stressed upon.
In the following sessions, an effort was made to
synthesize an alternate paradigm for rainfed
farming systems based upon successful
experiences. A number of presentations were
made on innovative experiences related to
rainfed farming systems in session III and IV.
Broadly they belong to the following six aspects
(i) sustainable rainfed crop production systems
using local inputs and marketing through
community owned institutions, (ii) social
regulation against overexploitation of ground
water, (iii) community managed seed bank,
(iv) reforms in management of institutional
credit for rainfed farming system,
(v) decentralized food security through millets
from rainfed lands, (vi) upscaling successful
experiences through sustainable community
based organizations.
Based upon these experiences, a need was
strongly felt for redesigning support systems and
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
incentives for upscaling successful experiences.
It was felt that there was a need to shift the
focus from transfer of specific technology to the
overall development of livelihoods; from
productivity of a unit crop to the productivity
of a unit area and from enhancement of
productivity to enhancement of the income. The
technological contents and management
processes behind many of the successful
viii
experiences were based upon the above shifts
which have been arrived at through judicious
blend of indigenous and exogenous knowledge
systems. Hence support systems and incentives
are also to be redesigned if these experiences
are to be upscaled.
It was also strongly felt that a critical analysis
of existing schemes / projects may therefore be
carried out so that required modification in
respective guidelines can be made before
designing new schemes. In this regard,
participants outlined some critical
recommendations from group work regarding
support systems and incentives under each
theme of the workshop
Proceedings
Dr. Mangal Rai, Director General of ICAR in
his inaugural message called for focusing on the
practical agenda for evolving a roadmap,
operational strategies and options that can
contribute specially in building the agenda of
rainfed farming in the XIth Five Year Plan.
Dr. Vyas in his key note address delved upon
the need to reorient the pricing, trade, credit
and risk mitigation policies to the needs of the
rainfed agriculture. Increasing investments in
land and water conservation, ensuring adequate
supply of credit, protection against risks are key
to realize the full potential of the rainfed
agriculture. As input subsidies are ineffective
tools of transfer of income, he called upon to
reorient input subsidies towards improving
productivity. Observing that the minimum
support prices though announced for 34 crops,
procurement was operational only for paddy
and wheat. The governments should honor their
commitments and MSP should be governed by
the cost of production. Dr. Vyas stressed on the
need to move towards ‘total portfolio of income’
and crop cycle of three years as a basis for
extending credit to dryland farmers and the
focus must be on implementing credit policy.
He observed that there is no proof of risk
coverage though weather insurance or other
sophisticated tools are superior to crop
insurance, if it is administered properly.
Responding to the presentations in the
inaugural sessions, Dr. Abhijit Sen, Member
Planning Commission, stressed on the need to
stabilize incomes. Though the distortions in
fertilizer subsidies are well known, most of the
subsidies including MSP tend overwhelmingly
towards irrigated agriculture. And any clear
solution in this regard is distant as it leads to
political unpopularity. Most of the public
investments in irrigated areas are resulting in
‘wastage and inefficiencies’. Reducing the
standard deviation of income and output is a
great concern and reducing uncertainties in
prices and outputs should receive greater
attention. It is neither possible nor desirable to
promote ‘standard’ models like ‘green
revolution’ as an effective solution to the
complex rainfed agriculture situations. Thus,
Dr. Sen stressed on the need for transferring
resources and decision making to ‘below state
levels’ after building adequate capacities in
addressing the issues related to rainfed areas.
He also emphasized on the need for evolving
‘better design of schemes’.
Addressing the special session, Sri. B.N.
Yugandhar, Member, Planning Commission
brought out the need for building effective
support systems (seed and feed, research,
technology, credit, extension etc.) for the poor
and tenant farmers. Though there is a wider
recognition of the distortions related to the
usage of natural resources, agrarian relations
etc., in rainfed areas, there is no concern/
focus on these issues in any of the policy
conclaves; this was the main policy paradox at
present, he observed. The rainfed areas are
under-invested and the technologies are
becoming the preserve of only the rich and those
in the irrigated areas. He called for a focus on
‘empowering and liberating technologies’ for the
small and marginal farmers and the need to
curtail the divorce between land-ownership
and peasantry with productive interests. He
stressed on the need for evolving appropriate
architecture for a new paradigm.
Dr. Samra, CEO of the National Rainfed Areas
Authority (NRAA) elaborated on its purpose
and organizational structure. He stressed on the
need for bridging the gap between resources and
technical expertise and convergence among
various players. He felt that integration of
forests, crops, water issues, horticulture,
livestock, micro-enterprises etc., is a
challenging inter-ministerial task. Convergence
can be achieved through district and state level
planning processes. Streamlining Capacity
Building still remains a challenging task in the
watershed development programs.
Need for shift in carrying out research
and development in rainfed areas
Against the backdrop of the present serious
crisis in agriculture, various large scale
experiences emerging across the country
provide strong evidence that regenerative and
resource conserving approaches to farming can
bring both environmental and economical
benefits to farmers. Such approaches are
diffusing even without government support. A
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
need was felt to evolve new ways of
understanding (theory and knowledge), new
ways of doing (practices and products) and new
ways of organizing (partnership and
institution), etc. The need is also for new ways
of understanding, evaluating and supporting
such innovations. Participatory mode of
knowledge generation and dissemination are
much needed than the linear models of
ix
 technology diffusion.
It was also felt that conceptual shifts such as
plant-pest dynamics to pest-ecology dynamics,
seed replacement to seed retention, plant-
nutrient relations to soil-plant relations,
production per crop area to production per unit
of land and centralized to decentralized food
security are needed. The community based
organisations would provide an appropriate
platform for such new paradigm to take roots.
Need for a Separate Agriculture Policy
for Rainfed Areas
Architecture of Green Revolution ensured
development of extensive support structures
and systems such as establishment of fertilizer
industry, irrigation, storage and other
infrastructure, investment in research and
extension system, creation of demand through
PDS, price support and procurement
mechanisms, etc. Such a bold initiate and
leadership is lacking in reviving the rainfed
farming. Very little of these infrastructure
services, subsidies / incentives are accessed by
rainfed farmers.
There is no parity of investment between
irrigated and rainfed agriculture both in terms
of infrastructure development and for adoption
of production systems on recurring basis. Most
of the incentives for irrigated farming are built
around high cost external inputs, which have
not proved to be sustainable for rainfed
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
farming. These incentives had a negative effect
on adoption of many of the successful
indigenous technologies/ inputs which are
based upon locally available raw material/
biomass. The high cost external inputs
(pesticides, fertilizers, etc) and resultant
indebtedness has led to the current farmers’
crisis in Indian agriculture.
Extension of the distorted incentive structures
x
designed to promote green revolution to rainfed
areas is promoting unsustainable trends like over
exploitation of groundwater, expansion of
irrigation intensive horticulture, mono-cropping
etc. A shift towards ‘critical irrigation’ for
rainfed crops on a large scale, enhances
productivity of rainfed farms substantially and
also provides security against droughts. Further
social regulation of ground water and moving
towards shared / collective bore-wells may
provide the much desired stability in incomes.
The centralized system of national food
security built around wheat and paddy
changed food consumption patterns in rainfed
areas and led to substantive reduction in area
under millets. Fodder shortages and labour
constraints in maintenance of bullocks during
off season, among others, along with the
subsidies in diesel and tractors have resulted in
sharp decline of bullock power and escalated
energy costs.
In spite of recognizing the deteriorating soil
health as a major problem, hardly any
investments are planned in the XIth Five Year
Plan on supporting regeneration of soil health
and soil organic matter. If support is available
to the extent of what an irrigated farmer gets,
large number of farmers would adopt practices
that build soil health. The problem is to convert
appropriate diagnosis into affirmative action.
There is a need to innovate upon ways of
supporting local technological options which are
otherwise becoming out of focus due to
increasing cost of labour. Labour subsidies could
be a sustainable instrument both to develop
infrastructure and to adopt production
technologies on recurring basis.
Watershed development is considered as a
critical instrument for development of rainfed
areas. A major reform is needed in these projects
to integrate desired support systems and
incentives for development of farm production
systems and investments on developing
community based organisations. This will also
help in rainfed areas getting required
investments beyond watershed development,
which at present are a miniscule of what the
irrigated agriculture is getting.
Mere ‘district level planning’ would not solve
the problem as the mindset of agriculture
functionaries and even farmers is set by the
‘dominant paradigm’. In this regard, the
incremental changes will not help and hence it
requires a ‘paradigm shift and a bold
leadership’ to really tap the potential of rainfed
areas.
Towards synthesis of a new
paradigm for rainfed farming
systems based upon successful
experiences
Decentralized food security through
millets from rainfed lands
The Indian Public Distribution System (PDS),
perhaps the largest welfare measure anywhere
in the world, amounts to a food subsidy of Rs
23,828 crores per year (2006-07). The
centralized food security system through
irrigated rice and wheat has marginalized the
most nutritive millets that people have grown
on their rainfed lands. Introduction of rice in to
the diet of rainfed areas also increased the
fallow lands leading to further degradation. The
experience of Deccan Development Society
(DDS) in developing a community based
public distribution system wherein production,
procurement, storage and distribution of
millets is carried out at the village level provides
substantive basis for introducing millets into the
mainstream PDS. As the millets also provide
better nutrition and soil conservation and
increases biodiversity, they must be given
adequate price incentives for production.
Procurement must also be ensured at the same
time. Local community managed grain banks
also have immense potential, particularly in the
chronic hunger areas such as tribal areas.
Crop production through organic
approaches
Low external inputs / non-chemical approaches
widely practiced in the country are offering a
greater promise for risk ridden rainfed
farming. These approaches developed through
informal research range from low-external
inputs (LEISA), non-chemical pest management
(NPM), ‘truthfully labeled organic’ and
certified organic farming approaches. These
approaches shared in the workshop brought out
their impacts on risk reduction, low costs, higher
employment generation and higher net
incomes; in addition, to the ecological benefits.
Natural resources management is a key factor
in all these approaches. A careful analysis of
these promising approaches successfully
practiced by millions of farmers across the
country provides insights into appropriate
policy measures to bring these approaches into
the mainstream public programs in rainfed
farming. The deliberations pointed out the need
for investing on the rainfed areas in terms of
infrastructure (storage and primary processing
facilities), extension systems based on skill and
knowledge transfer, appropriate
mechanization. Appropriate economic
incentives for biological and local organic
inputs are also needed. Small catchment scale
water harvesting, supplemental irrigation and
improving soil and moisture regimes will have
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
substantial impact.
Pest Management through
Non-Pesticidal Methods (NPM)
This approach taken up on a large scale in
Andhra Pradesh, is an integration of all
sustainable pest management practices in
harmony with natural processes; and
primarily uses locally available inputs and
knowledge of pest-predator complexes. Cost
xi
 reduction ranged from Rs.1000 to 10,000 per
acre. The presentations brought out the need
to replace the input subsidies by labour
subsidies, capacity building inputs, processing
equipment, sharing of knowledge and
community organisation. In the context of wide
spread distress in rainfed areas, NPM has larger
contextual relevance. As paraphrased by
Dr. V.L.Chopra, “NPM is not just a matter of
faith but is applicable in farm” and requires a
readjustment in the government policy. The
importance of community based organisations
in spreading such processes was stressed upon.
Seeds in the Hands of Community
Ensuring good quality seeds for timely sowing
in rainfed farms is a major issue. The private
sector is mostly interested in low volume and
high value seed, weakening the public sector
seed support systems, increasing focus in
research on transgenic and proprietary seed etc.,
These trends are leading to farmers loosing
control over seeds resulting in large scale crisis
in the seed sector in rainfed areas. As more than
80% of the seed demand is met through farmer
saved / informal sources, the systems of
seed-retention by farmers need greater focus.
Public investments in seeds for rainfed areas
need to focus on ‘large volume and low value’
seeds, village / farmer level exchanges and
community seed banks. Expansion of the scope
of seed support system to the farmer produced
seed used by the community, shifting of
recurring seed subsidy into revolving fund at
community level, improving the quality of
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
farmer saved seeds are some of the points
emphasized in the deliberations.
Improving Soil Productivity through
Enhancing Organic Matter in Soils
Lack of concerted efforts in improving soil
organic matter has resulted in technology
fatigue and deceleration in productivity growth.
It has also resulted in deficiencies in S, Zn, Fe
and other micro nutrients. In the tropics
xii
efficient recycling of organic matter is more
important than organic matter build up. In situ
application of smaller amounts of organic
matter (of about 2 tons per ha annually) is
desired in rainfed areas. Together with
agriculturally beneficial microorganisms and
soil moisture, soil organic matter can meet much
of the nutrient needs of crops and can reduce
the risks involved in rainfed farming. Focus on
enhancing soil biological processes will increase
nutrient pool and several biomass based
strategies have been successful across the
country. These experiences can be up- scaled if
the subsidies are extended to in situ organic
inputs at par with the chemical inputs like urea.
Crop husbandry systems must be changed
towards building soil organic matter. Such a
shift towards biomass based agriculture is
strongly advocated as it gives comparable yields
to conventional systems with less external
inputs. While this generates large employment,
it would also substantially reduce energy costs
and cost of imported external inputs. Policy
support must be extended to create such in situ
nutrient banks. Subsidies must be extended to
green manures, biomass augmentation,
encouraging green manuring legume trees,
conservation agriculture etc., and at par with
the irrigated agriculture in the quantum of
subsidies. This support can be in the form of
‘targeted schemes’. Similarly research must be
freed from ‘external led’ agendas to pursue
local solutions and investments in such research
must be enhanced. Participatory research and
rainfed areas are inseparable and must be
pursued to find out effective solutions.
Special Policy for Water Resources
Management in Rainfed Areas
Inspite of the large investments on irrigation,
the gap between potential created and utilized
is consistently increasing over the Five Year
Plans. Per ha investment cost on major
irrigation has reached an alarming level of
Rs.130,000, while the same in watershed
development is about Rs.6000. While the cost
of augmenting groundwater through watershed
approaches was through public investments,
the cost of creation of irrigation source was left
to individuals resulting in privatizing the
access to groundwater. More over, the
subsidies in power, sprinklers and drips also
flow in to those who ‘own’ bore wells. There
are no explicit support systems for
encouraging collective use of augmented
resources in watershed areas. Reversal of this
trend is necessary to incentivise collectivization
of ground water access.
In situ conservation measures, mulching, soil
organic matter etc., play an important role in
Arid and Semi-arid areas. Water use and land
use must be seen together. Investments on such
aspects and efficient water application
methods are necessary for enhancing water
productivity. Critical irrigation support to
rainfed crops improves water productivity
substantially. Investments in improving water
resources development in rainfed areas must be
comprehensive to include all these aspects.
Social regulation on bore wells is much needed
to contain the competitive ‘borewell race’.
Investments on facilitating evolution of social
norms in the usage of ground water such as
ban on digging of new borewells and sharing
of borewell water with neighboring farmers,
conditional support for micro irrigation and pipe
lines are important support systems. Encour-
aging such processes also enables the
communities to reduce risk in rainfed areas by
sharing water during critical periods of rainfall
shortages. At present the subsidy regime
(water, inputs and power) is incentivising new
borewells and over exploitation. A shift in
public investment is necessary towards
incentivising ‘not-digging’ of new borewells and
sharing of water, investing on infrastructure for
critical irrigation, in situ conservation and
moisture management, and in social processes
to collectively manage ground water. The issues
of equity in distribution of conserved water are
of utmost importance.
Sustainable Community Based
Organisations- A Key to sustainability
and Up-scaling
The emerging paradigm for rainfed farming
consists of a number of elements which are based
upon field experience from informal research
and development. More often such innovations
are unattended for lack of back up support from
formal research systems. As in the Indira Kranthi
Patham program in Andhra Pradesh, a larger
platform of community based organisations
(SHGs and their Federations) provides a strong
basis for quick up scaling of approaches like
community managed sustainable agriculture.
Up scaling of NPM program reaching coverage
of 1.6 lakh ha across the state in about 4 years
time is a case in point. These approaches
centered on ‘farmers as scientists’, faster lateral
diffusion of knowledge among organised
community groups, anchorage by CBOs and
facilitation by NGOs has shown higher
potential for scaling up knowledge intensive
sustainable agriculture programs.
Risky and Under-Invested Rainfed
Areas: The Dilemmas of Credit
How banks can reach out to rainfed areas
substantially when rainfed production systems
face multiple risks- is a key question. The
mechanisms of ‘cyclical credit’ and ‘total income
portfolio approach’ to farm-credit inclusive of
credit needs for livestock and other experiments
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
are still to be fine-tuned in terms of their
operational modalities. Risk reduction through
multiple-initiatives in production systems,
financial instruments and community
organisation is necessary. Group based
approaches, investing on community based
institutions, building on institutional
accountability are the key to ensure greater
fund-flow to rainfed areas and reduce the
transaction costs. Multiplicity of institutions and
xiii
 criticality of investment on institution building
in this process is emphasized in the
deliberations. Appropriate norms and
provisions for waivers of loans (interest, part or
full principle) must be evolved for rainfed
areas. Provision of interest subsidy is crucial for
rainfed farmers. Strengthening of
implementation of the crop insurance scheme
is much awaited.
Rainfed-perspective and Focus on
Livestock Development
Grazing based animal husbandry is the
dominant livestock production system in rainfed
areas (ranging from sedentary to nomadic
types), contributing substantially to the incomes
of the marginalized and agriculture systems.
The small ruminant production systems in spite
of their substantial contribution to the rainfed
areas and the economy, do not have any
support systems. The investments on rainfed
livestock support systems are also very low.
Disease control and space for community
organisations in the delivery of services needs
high priority. Improving fodder base,
particularly in common lands is of utmost
importance. A ‘Drylands Perspective on
Livestock Development’ must be formulated
and it must guide the development investments
in livestock in rainfed areas; regional
specificities must be built into such perspective.
Decentralised Decision Making and
Capacities needed
Standardized model like that of green
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
revolution may not be appropriate for rainfed
areas due to high degree of heterogeneity and
complexity. Therefore it is essential to shift the
resources and decision-making process to
district level which will promote relevant
solutions for concerned rainfed areas. The
guidelines of several programs such as Rashtriya
Krishi Vikas Yojana, Watershed Development,
Backward Regions Grant Fund, NREGS etc., can
be suitably re-structured to provide necessary
xiv
investments for institutionalizing the support
systems and incentives in line with the new
paradigm. The newly created autonomous body
National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA) can
provide lead in facilitating such reforms and
improving the delivery mechanism at lower
level.
It is essential to capitalize on complementarities
between public sector, CBOs, civil society and
private sector, in order to rejuvenate rainfed
farming in the country. Alternate approaches,
as outlined above, are needed with regard to
production systems, natural resource
development, technology development and
extension system. Specific efforts are needed to
upscale successful experiences and integrating
them in the district plans of the centrally
sponsored schemes. Capacity building at lower
level would therefore become critical,
particularly with respect to applying the
knowledge and solving the problems. In this
regard, the deliberations in the workshop
provide a basic framework for action. The need
is to have a bold new vision to reformulate the
priorities in rainfed areas.
Conclusion
The deliberations in the workshop have brought
out the need for reformulating the policies and
support systems for rainfed areas rather than
merely extending the green revolution
framework. Parity of investments between
irrigated and rainfed areas must be ensured. The
elements of a new paradigm are synthesized in
the workshop from various grass-roots
experiences emerging across the country.
Appropriate support systems and incentives
need to be in place to up scale these experiences.
Investments, subsidies etc., in rainfed areas need
to be prioritized in line with the emerging
paradigm. A new vision, adequate investments
and appropriate support systems and incentives
are much needed to revitalize rainfed farming
and livelihoods of the people in rainfed areas.
■
Inaugural Session
 Welcome and Introductory Remarks
Dr. Nawab Ali
DDG (NRM), ICAR
D r. Nawab Ali, Deputy Director General, ICAR
(Engineering and NRM) welcomed the
participants on behalf of ICAR, WASSAN and
CSA. While delivering the introductory remarks,
he briefly explained the context of rainfed
farming; objectives of the workshop and also
its design which broadly consisted of the
following six sessions spread over 3 days (refer
Annexures 1 and 2 for further details about
agenda and list of participants). ■
September 27th, 2007
Session – I: Inaugural and Special Session
Session – II: Analysis of existing scenario in Rainfed Areas
Session – III: New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
September 28th, 2007
Session – IV: Critical Support Systems for Upscaling Successful Experiences on 6 major themes
associated with Rainfed Farming
Theme – A: Pest Management through Non Pesticidal Methods
Theme – B: Seeds in the hands of the Community
Theme – C: Enhancement of Organic matter in Soils
Theme – D: Separate policy for Water Resource in Rainfed Areas
Theme – E: Self Reliant development through Sustainable Community based
Organizations and Reforms in Management of Institutional Credit
Theme – F: Self Reliant Development of Small Ruminants with Resource Poor Families
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

September 29th, 2007

Session – V: Group work on Support Systems and Incentives with respect to the following four aspects
Group – I: Sustainable Agriculture in Rainfed Areas including Management of Soils,
Pest and Seeds
Group – II: Water for Rainfed Areas
Group – III: Re-looking at Livestock in Rainfed Areas
Group – IV: Institutions for Rainfed Areas Development
Session – VI: Concluding Session
2
 Address by Chief Guest
In search of a new paradigm for self-reliant
development of Rainfed Farming
‘Need to capitalize on complementarities’
Dr. Mangal Rai
Director General, ICAR
In his brief opening remarks, Dr. Mangal Rai,
Director General, ICAR, emphasised on the
need to capitalize on complementarities
between ‘research and development’ and called
upon the diverse range of participants in the
workshop to deliberate on the practical agenda
of rainfed farming that can contribute to
improving the XIth Five Year Plan.
Referring to the inherent power in the smaller
particles in the biological sciences, Dr. Rai
elaborated on the applications of nano “At present we are able to harness only 29% of
technology in developing slow releasing the precipitation. With this how are we going
fertilizers and water using nano-particles to to sustain 17% of the world population,” he
increase the input use efficiency in Indian questioned. With India’s share of 4.2% of
agriculture. These smaller ones are the most water, 2.3 % of land and 11% of livestock of the
powerful and “we need to address them in the world, meeting the basic requirements becomes
right ernest”. a challenge. How effectively and judiciously we
harvest water and increase its use efficiency and
Though there is an abudance of data, critique,
productivity is the key in the rainfed
analysis of what is to be done and what not to
agriculture. He stated that soil erosion at the
be done, there is dearth of work on ‘how to do’,
rate of 16 tons per ha per year is resulting into a
what practical systems and mechanisms to be
colossal loss.
followed, how to bring about and capitalize on

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

complementarities and how to harness positive
interaction effect. How stakeholders play as
partners to work in synergistic pattern is the
key. Evolving a road map, strategy and options
are lacking. During the intensive deliberations
planned in the workshop he suggested that a
very basic strategy, options must be evolved.
Bringing about “players as partners” would go
a long way.
On the other hand, 40% compound growth rate
taking place in sprinkler irrigation is a healthy
sign; but what we have achieved is minimal.
An increase in water use efficicency by 10% i.e.
from the present level of 40 to 50% would
contribute to almost 40 to 50 tons of additional
food grain production, but the question is how
do we achieve this?
Reemphasising on the need for developing
3
 healthy competition, effective cooperation and reflective and contribute towards making
building in complementarities for improving the effective recommendations to be incorporated
Indian agriculture situation, the Director in the agricultural policy of XIth Five Year Plan
General stressed on the need for developing so that the limited resources can be better
partnership between research and development utilized. He also hoped that the representatives
organisations. from Planning Commission, Government of
India, Scientific community and Civil Society
On behalf of ICAR, Dr. Rai extended warm
Organisations would intensively deliberate on
welcome to all the participants of the workshop.
various issues and give the ‘Big Push’ to
He hoped that the two days of intense and
rejuvenate the rainfed farming system in the
productive deliberations would yield ‘rich
country.
harvest’ for the rainfed farming in the country.
He called on the participants to be self ■
Key Note Address
Policy reforms at national level for enhancing
inclusive growth in rainfed areas during XI Plan
“We know where the things are going wrong..
the only thing is to act upon it”
Dr. V. S. Vyas
Professor Emeritus, IDS
be taken on policies related to Pricing, Trade,
Credit and Risk Mitigation in the context of the
rainfed agriculture.
Of nearly 139.1 million ha net cropped area (in
TE ending 2003), nearly 83.9 million ha is the
net rain-fed area and the remaining 55.3
million ha is the irrigated area. Thus, rain-fed
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

area account for nearly 60 percent of the

I n his address, Prof. Vyas focused on the
needed policy initiative for development of
Rainfed Agriculture. He mainly dwelt on the
lacunae in policy focus on the rainfed
agriculture as compared to irrigated areas. His
presentation concentrated on the initiatives to
4
cultivated area in the country. The situation is
not going to change much and even in coming
ten years more than half of the cultivated land
will be rain-fed. He also felt that the extension
of irrigation facility will not provide the needed
solution. The efficiency of irrigation water is
low, while the cost of extending surface water
is huge, 1.2 lakh rupees per ha (during IXth Plan)
and it is continuously increasing. There is
increased reliance on irrigation from ground
water, which in most of the regions of the
country is not a viable solution. Increasingly
more blocks are being declared as ‘black” in
regard to the ground water situation. In this
context a large number of farmers will continue
to depend on dry land agriculture where they
suffer from depleted land and water resources,
uncertain weather, low value crops and low
productivity.
According to him, the case of farmers
dependent on rain-fed agriculture is not
hopeless. There are rain-fed crops, such as
pulses, oilseeds, cotton and maize for which the
demand is likely to be buoyant. At present, there
is a huge gap between the yield obtained and
the potential yield of these crops in dry land
conditions. There is also a vast scope for
increasing supplementary enterprises, especially
dairy and dryland horticulture. For this he
suggested the needed action in terms of
increasing investment in land improvement and
water conservation, instituting proper price policy,
establishing efficient marketing structures,
ensuring adequate supply of credit and providing
protection against risks. He stressed the need for
effective governance and enabling people’s
participation as they are the key elements in
delivering the needed action to realize the full
potential of rainfed agriculture.
While concentrating on the four major policies
he opined that Policy is not the beginning and
the end of action: investment, technology and
organisations are also important. He said that
many of these policies are relevant for
agriculture as such and some are specific to
rainfed farming. Elaborating on the price policy,
Prof. Vyas emphasized on addressing the
anomalies with regard to Input and Output
price policy as the gap between them is
widening. The situation is that where ever policy
is directed to make inputs cheaper by overt or
hidden subsidies, e.g. in water, power, or
nitrogenous fertilizers, it led to imbalanced and
inefficient use of inputs, leading to loss of
productivity in the short as well as long term.
He suggested following measures to address
this anomaly: economic prices of the inputs
should be determined and publicized. Overt
subsidy should be given, mainly, with the
objective of improving productivity with the
use of a given input. He opined that subsidies
are not effective tools for transfer of income.
In the Output Price policy, he stated that using
Minimum Support Price (MSP) as synonymous
with the procurement price has very negative
implications and distortions. Instead he
suggested that MSP should be governed by the
cost of production, while the procurement price
should be related to market. For the country as
a whole MSP should be announced for 5 to 6
major crops. Presently, MSP is announced for
34 crops in the country but implemented only
in case of wheat and paddy. In addition, a state
may announce MSP for 2 or 3 crops specific for
the state. The centre as well as the states should
honor their commitments, or else the credibility
is at stake. Procurement prices should be
flexible, depending on the need for Buffer Stock
and for PDS on the one hand, and the size of
the crop and the ruling national and
international price on the other. Greater use
should be made of the Futures market, and
farmers should be made literate to deal in these
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
markets.
With regard to the Trade Policy, it is wrong to
assume that WTO provisions will not affect our
agriculture in a significant way because only
some of our agricultural products enter
international trade. In India, at present, the
contribution of agricultural trade is less than 9
percent of the overall trade. It is to be viewed
that the main non-cereal crops of rain-fed
5
 areas, namely, pulses, oilseeds and cotton as
well as dairy products are important from the
point of view of international trade. Many more
products like maize, fruits and vegetables, which
are gaining importance in the rain-fed areas,
are also traded in the international markets. To
better utilize this potential, some important
issues need to be tackled. There is a need for
establishing greater correspondence between
the domestic price policy and tariff policy. It
will be more efficient if the agency which is
advising the government on domestic price
policy, (viz., CACP or any alternative) also
advises on the tariff policy for agricultural
commodities. There is a vast gap between what
we are allowed and what we are imposing in
bounded tariff and we should use it wisely, he
opined. Developed countries like USA and
European Union are subsidizing farmers who
produce commodities in which they want to
establish export monopoly. The need is to think
of counterveiling measures and Government of
India should assist farmers whose products face
competition. This can be done without
violating WTO obligations.
In respect to Credit Policy, he said that the
observations of various committees headed by
bankers and experts should be taken seriously
and not dismissed. He suggested that the ‘whole
portfolio of income’ should be the criteria for
extending credit in rainfed areas. This is
practiced in industrial credit and should be
applied to agriculture also. He also observed
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
that following provisions are important
especially for the rain-fed areas: Credit should
be made available for a crop cycle of two or
three years rather than for one season. As dry
land agriculture is diversified, credit should be
against the total income portfolio rather than
only against crops. Keeping in view the
dryland farmers who get bulk of their income
only in one season, consumption credit should
6
also be made available. Depending on the
severity and duration of a calamity, clear
provisions for waivers (waiving interest,
waiving part of principle, waiving full interest
and principle) need to be designed. This policy
should not be politically motivated. There is also
a need to look at the ways of implementing the
Credit Policy.
Prof. Vyas called for a ‘concrete policy action’
to address the issue of Risk Mitigation in Rainfed
Areas. Apart from the market induced risks,
which are common for all agricultural
producers, important problem faced by dry land
farmers is the weather induced uncertainties.
Farmers in the dryland areas are risk averse as
they do not have anything to fall back upon.
There are two important risk mitigation
measures: MSP and agriculture insurance
scheme. The later scheme is covering hardly 10
percent of the farmers. There is a vast scope to
improve upon the existing risk mitigation. There
is no need to replace the existing Crop
Insurance Scheme but it can be further
strengthened. The main difficulties in the
process are in methods, procedures and
governance. Realistic reforms have been
suggested by independent researchers and also
by the official Working Groups in areas such as
extending coverage, determining threshold
yields, assessing yield, rationalizing premium,
reducing time lag in making payments etc. It is
important to act upon these measures rather
than thinking of some untried schemes and
programs. For example, in the present
circumstances it is difficult to prove that
Weather Insurance or other sophisticated
measures are superior to the existing Crop
Insurance Scheme if it is administrated
properly. He concluded by observing that,
“… we know where things are going wrong.. the
only thing is to act upon it…”
■
 Strategies for enhancing growth in Agriculture during XIth Plan
Transferring ‘Resources’ to Micro level is the Key
Dr. Abhijit Sen
Member, Planning Commission
D r. Sen, Chairperson of the session, reflecting
on the agenda of the workshop felt that much
of the work slated for discussion is either
technological or institutional; and by its nature
it is ‘micro level’ where results can be observed.
He emphasized that the concerns raised by Prof.
Vyas in his presentation are critical and if they
are not addressed at micro level, it would be a
‘grave mistake’. He observed that the,
“…concerns on input and output prices and
stabilizing them are fundamental issues… but
unfortunately they are repeatedly economist
stressed…” Income stability is an important
concern, which is also influenced by output
prices. The issues such as distortions of
subsidies and policies have been discussed time
and again but we are far away from any
significant solution.
Commenting on the MSP, he said that in the
beginning of the millennium we had high stocks
and high MSP; following which we resorted to
low MSP and exports. This has now resulted in
low stocks; thus starting another cycle. “There
is tremendous pressure to match the balance in
what the Indian producers get and the import
prices that we are paying …” he observed.
On fertilizer subsidy, there is clear
understanding on the ‘distortions’ but the
possibility of any clear decision is ‘remote’ in
the context of the current political situation in
the country. Any hard decisions in this regard
would result in huge unpopularity.
Regarding Insurance, he said that, “... some
thing is happening in slow manner.. but it is a
tough nut to crack… Weather based insurance
is one option. Better governance and
monitoring are necessary elements in this
respect….”
Regarding trade policy, he felt that, we have
not broken through the main constraint which
is MSP. Most of the subsidies tend to go over-
whelmingly towards irrigated agriculture. He
observed that subsidies are incentives to use
resources in a certain way, which should have
more effect on rainfed agriculture. Incentives
should promote efficient use of resources he
suggested. Uncertainties in ‘prices and outputs’
are causing great concern. He called for
focusing on reducing these uncertainties at
‘micro’ level. He underlined on some critical
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
elements: the first one is diversification; which
is the surest way of reducing risk. Second
aspect is focusing on stabler and longer period
incomes and reducing the deviations. Finally,
reducing standard deviation of ‘income’ and the
‘outputs’.
Dr. Sen shared that it is impossible to promote
a standard model like that of Green Revolution
as an effective solution to the complex rainfed
7
 agriculture where crops, technological
constraints as well as options vary widely. If
the interventions are to be made by the
government the resources, decision making
process, options should be transferred to below
the state level. He stressed upon the need to
focus on building capacities at lower level to
apply knowledge and solve problems.
Reflecting on the XIth Plan, he told that the
economy is seeing huge savings which has
reached to a level of 30 percent. This
demonstrates that resources are available. In
this context, achieving 8 percent growth rate is
not a ‘fairy tale’, but very much ‘achievable’.
He said that ‘inclusive growth’ is the framework
of the XIth Plan. Education is an escalator for
people to move up and out of agriculture.
Efforts are also there to put agriculture ‘back
on track’ and the Steering Group on
Agriculture focused on ‘technology and
natural resources’. At present the public
investment in agriculture is very low and has
fallen to 2 percent of GDP. But it is hoped that
this will rise to 4 percent within two years of
the XIth Plan. Prof. Sen disclosed that XIth Plan
has huge savings; and there are enough
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
8
resources available. According to him, the
critical question is not the quantum of
investment but where it is going.
Dr. Sen underlined the need to reduce public
investments in the irrigated areas as this is
resulting in ‘huge waste and inefficiencies’. He
also cautioned that ‘such large amount of
investment’ can not be expected for rainfed
areas. He felt that investments should be made
at a ‘meaningful’, ‘maintainable’ and
‘compatible’ levels to augment the growth.
According to him, there is no dearth of funds
at present and what is required is ‘better
design’ of schemes. With the ‘Rashtriya Krishi
Vikas Yojana’, a new scheme, states would get
enough money which they are free to spend,
provided two conditions are met. The first is
that the States should maintain their share of
funds. Second is the ‘decentralized district level
planning’ with a focus on ‘better utilization of
resources’. According to him shifting of
resources and decision making process to
‘lower’ levels will provide solutions to the
rainfed areas and called for restraint in giving
a vision like green revolution to such areas.
■
 Special Session

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

9
 Sustainable Development of Rainfed Areas
Need to redefine agrarian relations
Shri B.N. Yugandhar
Member, Planning Commission
A t the outset, Shri Yugandhar pointed out that
it may not be appropriate to call what is now
happening as ‘paradigm shift’. What all of us
are concerned with is the proper architecture
for evolving a ‘new paradigm’. He said that
despite varied technological options backed up
by different policies, there are peculiar
‘incapacities in the system and the whole area
of peasant-land relationships has become
controversial and confused. Despite rational
policies and choices, it is not clear how to deal
with this confusion. The ecological foundation
of agriculture is essential for sustainable
advancement. Soil health, efficient use of
water and mobilization of the farming
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
community towards the management of
natural resource are all vital issues. Now
farming has become a high risk profession and
the support from agricultural systems was
reaching only to a small minority of farmers.
Natural resource management should
concentrate on common property resources.
However, no code of conduct for management
of common property resources has been
seriously formulated and advocated. At any
10
conclave or discussions among senior policy
makers, including even Chief Ministers there is
no focus or concern regarding the emerging
issues in agriculture on account of unbalanced
use of natural resources and distorted agrarian
relations. This was the main policy paradox
according to Shri Yugandhar.
At present 40-45 percent of land in the country
is cultivated by small and marginal farmers who
constitute 80 percent of the farming
community. More than 30 percent of the land
is cultivated by tenants. The irony is that major
institutions and sub systems (e.g. credit,
market support, research, seed and feed
linkages, technical and extension support, etc.)
are bypassing them and not operating on their
behalf. While all the systems are focused on
areas with canal irrigation, rainfed areas have
become ‘bypassed areas’. ‘If you have one acre
of surface irrigated land it receives lot of
subsidies through various systems’ he said.
According to him, various sub systems of
agriculture, such as credit, marketing,
extension, community based efforts & subsidies
etc. either are not operating or have collapsed.
Rebuilding these sub-systems as relevant to the
majority of our peasant community, especially
the small and marginal farmers and the
tenants, is the real challenge.
He said that though Green Revolution has
succeeded in providing desired results, it has
also the other side. The paradox is that many of
the first generation Green Revolution farmers,
who have benefited from it, have now moved
away from agriculture, but not from land
ownership, thus increasing the tenancy. There
is a divorce between land ownership and
peasantry with production interets. All the
subsidies however are targeted to the land
owning class. In this context he referred an
incident in Anantapur district of Andhra
Pradesh where nearly 200 crore rupees were
given as relief for crop loss, which was
distributed to the owners on the basis of the
records without even bothering to know who
the actual cultivator was. He observed that the
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies
(PACS) and District Marketing Federations
have suffered “crony capture”.
Stating that the country is craving for
‘redesigning of agrarian relations’, Shri
Yugandhar said ‘I am not pleading for radical
land reforms as in the initial years of
independence; I am pleading for
implementing the Law as it now exists. If we
cannot push the non-productive interests out
of agriculture there can be no paradigm shift.
I do not know how this cat can be belled’.
Further dwelling into the issue of land in the
hands of poor, he presented the disturbing
scenario existing in the country. Emphasizing
on land and agrarian reforms, he said that there
are several activities that can be undertaken
under the present laws such as providing title
deeds to small farmers; allocation of ceiling
surplus; etc. Referring to Bharat Dogra’s
document on Bundelkhand, he said that this
region is considered as an epitome of failures of
land reforms in the country, wherein the
administration was not able to put the land in
possession of the poor. In Andhra Pradesh, 55
lakh acres of land is in the hands of the poor,
but half of it is not cultivated for various
reasons. Systems like extension, research, credit
and marketing are not supportive to the poor
and there is a dire need of evolving better
‘alternative sub systems’.
Rainfed areas are under-invested and then
there are controversies in technology. There is
visible promise in approaches like NPM and
organic farming. But the crux of the problem in
rainfed areas is improvement of productivity,
surpluses and incomes, he emphasized. How
to increase small farm incomes is the question
at hand. Making small farm diversification
yielding surpluses is the real challenge. “… Are
we thinking of only subsistence?...”, he probed
and cautioned against technology becoming the
preserve of only the rich and those in irrigated
areas. He wanted to know whether a son of
sheep farmer can dream of becoming an owner
of stall fed improved flock of sheep. He wanted
technology to come to the help of the small and
marginal farmers. There is low cost
appropriate technology, where women and
farming communities are coming together to
make their own inputs, he informed, for which
avenues should be open to the rural youth.
Large scale and high productive diary and
poultry are out of reach for the poor. “… How
can one come out of poverty with a buffalo
giving one and half litre milk a day…”, he
questioned and hoped that the workshop would
come out with ‘empowering and liberating
technologies’ for the small and marginal
farmers.
Shri Yugandhar stated that there will be no
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
dearth of funding the developmental process,
as the Planning Commission is contemplating
to make necessary proposals in this regard. In
this context, he referred few schemes/programs
that are either in implementation or in pipeline.
First of them is National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), which provides
at least 50-60 crore rupees for each district
wherein major share is to be spent as per the
11
 decisions at the village level. Second is the emphasis on local planning. Finally, there is a
Backward Regions Grant Fund, being budget available under Participatory Watershed
implemented in 250 districts and each such Development Projects. With these funds it is
district gets 15 crore rupees. There is an possible to develop additional 40 million
allocation of nearly one crore rupees for hectares of rainfed area and there will be enough
capacity building related interventions under scope for improving livelihoods. The question
this. Thirdly, in the XIth Five Year Plan, much is how to influence the people to initiate
emphasis is given to agriculture sector and an ‘suitable action’ for utilizing these funds more
outlay of 20,000 crore rupees is proposed efficiently.
under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, with ■
Challenges before National Rainfed Area
Authority in Revitalizing Rainfed Agriculture
Convergence and Prioritization are key issues
Dr. J.S. Samra
CEO, National Rainfed Area Authority
agriculture. At present 60 percent of Indian
and 80 percent of the world agriculture is
un-irrigated. After having developed all water
resources, 50 percent of agriculture will still
continue to be rainfed. In our country, 86
percent pulses, 77 percent oil seeds and 50
percent cereals are contributed by rainfed
agriculture. Export commodities (as non G.M.
products) like castor oil, guar gum, seed spices
and soybean cake are important. International
A t the outset, Dr. Samra stressed on the trade in oil seeds is escalating thus demands on
convergence between different development rainfed agriculture would increase.
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

programs and the agencies implementing them.
The dichotomy is that ‘resources are at one place
and the technical expertise is at the other side.
There is a big lacuna in bridging the gap
between them. How to overcome it? If resources
create some assets which ultimately lead to
employment guarantee, that will provide some
solace to the rainfed areas…’
He elaborated on the present status of rainfed
12
Integration of forest lands, water management,
crops, horticulture, livestock and micro-
enterprise is a complex inter-ministerial task.
Convergence through district and state level
planning for optimizing resource utilization is
to be better prioritized. According to him, the
guidelines for different programs are mostly
‘common’, but looked at as if they are ‘not
common’. The key issues are ‘prioritization and
effective implementation’. Proper criteria for
prioritization is there but putting it in place is a
challenge. Another area of challenge is
capacity building. Though some alternatives
have been tried out, the experiences are not so
encouraging. In the context of present Hariyali
guidelines, he stressed on the need to build
capacities of Panchayats. “…The challenge is
how to build the capacities of Panchayats to
play their own role without loosing on
‘technological expertise...?” he wondered. The
way out is to ‘redesign’ the Capacity Building
process in such a way that every one has role
clarity and all the checks and balances are in
place.
According to Dr. Samra, ‘district’ is the very
well defined unit in the country for any policy
or development action. The need is to
strengthen the delivery system at different
levels. ‘… What are the triggering /cardinal
points for alternative derivatives?... This is a
challenge to explore….”, he observed. On
watershed program, he underlined the
importance of concurrent evaluation and
impact assessment to make it more effective. His
presentation also elaborated on the rationale,
mandate and organizational structure of
NRAA.
Summing up the presentations:
Chairperson Prof. Vyas putforth few points to
concentrate in deliberations based on the
presentations in the special session. He felt that:
● There seems to be a serious ‘disconnection’
between the people who are ‘real farmers’
and ‘those who claim to be farmers’. This
disconnection need to be understood
properly.
● There is also a need to evolve ‘new’
institutions as ‘old’ institutions have failed.
Required mechanism should also be
provided to ‘isolate dominant class interest’
from these institutions.
● Efforts to make ‘Farmer Representation’
more visible in the composition of National
Rainfed Area Authority. Putting ‘lead stake
holders’ in the front in addressing issues and
concerns would yield better results.
■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
13
 New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

14
 SESSION - II
Analysis of Existing Scenario in Rainfed Areas

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Chairperson
Dr. Rita Sharma, Financial Adviser (DARE & ICAR)
Co-chairperson
Dr. Devinder Sharma, Chairman, Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security
Rapporteur
Shri P.V.S.S. Surya Kumar, DGM, NABARD
15
 Synthesis of innovative experiences for
development of Rainfed Agriculture in
the context of emerging crisis
Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu
Executive Director, CSA
T he presentation started with a quotation from
noted scientist - Dr Albert Einstein, that, ‘…No
problem would be solved with the same level of
thinking that created it in the first place…’
Relying on scientific research,
Dr. Ramanjaneyulu, presented the gravity of
agricultural crisis in the country. The paradox
is that major crisis is located in regions with
technology and capital intensive cultivation
specially the green revolution areas in states like
Punjab, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka
and Maharashtra. Crisis in agriculture is
evident in the form of migration, unemployment
and underemployment and farmers’ suicides.
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
There are also ecological and economic costs like
destroyed soils, exhausted and polluted
groundwater, loss of diversity, increasing costs
of cultivation and decreasing returns. This
process is also making people losing control over
the natural resources-seeds, water and land.
Given this situation, he strongly advocated for
a new paradigm for facing the crisis. This
paradigmatic innovation need not necessarily
16
be a technological invention. It can be new ways
of understanding (theories, knowledge, etc);
new ways of doing (practices, products, etc) and
news ways of organizing (partnerships,
institutions, etc). He also outlined the nature of
this paradigm which is more diverse,
decentralized and technology generation
happening at different nodes and horizontal
spreading while the conventional systems rely
on highly centralized, topdown model.
Dr. Ramanjaneyulu said that there are strong
evidences across the country which show that
regenerative and resource-conserving
technologies and practices can bring both
environmental and economical benefits for
farmers and communities. It is also proved that
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) can
provide good platform for various innovations
to take roots. He elaborated on different
experiences in relation to Non Pesticidal
Management, Farmers Field Schools,
Community Seed Banks, Organic Farming,
Decentralized Food Security, Social Regulation
of Water etc. by various government and non
government agencies across the country. There
are also other experiences like System of Rice
Intensification, Diversity based Cropping
Systems, Millet based Cropping Systems,
Innovative use of Labor and Drought
Adaptation Initiatives. In rainfed areas the
innovation need not narrowly focus on
productivity alone, but also on sustaining
resources and reducing the costs and risks. He
quoted the example of Andhra Pradesh where
in the cotton cropthe major cost is pesticides,
for which Non Pesticidal Management (NPM)
approach is implemented. This reduced input
costs to greater extent and over a period is
moving towards ecological agriculture.
Most of these experiences are successful even
in the absence of public support and it is
evident that people are looking for options. He
cited the examples of various experiences which
are already scaled up in a significant way; (e.g.;
Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture
in Andhra Pradesh is already in 1500 villages;
Zero Budget farming is being practiced in more
than 10 lakh acres in Maharashtra, Karnataka,
Andhra Pradesh and Punjab. Natural Farming
in Punjab and APDS in AP in 9 districts, etc).
These experiences have amply demonstrated
that Ecological Farming is possible on a scale
provided essential support systems are built.
Therefore, what is needed is new ways of
understanding, evaluating and supporting such
innovations, he argued. It is also established that
Community Managed Systems are essential for
strong natural resource management systems.
He remarked that on pest management, the
dominant paradigm is focusing on plant-pest
dynamics rather than pest-ecology dynamism.
The challenge is to move away from linear ways
Economics of NPM cultivation in Andhra Pradesh (2005-06)
Crop Cost of Plant protection (Rs./acre)
Conventional
Cotton 5000
Chillies 15000
Redgram 1500
Groundnut 1500
Castor 2000
Paddy 2000
of thinking and working. With SERP
collaboration in Andhra Pradesh, the upscaling
of NPM approach reached 1500 villages,
resulting in reduced cost of cultivation. The
learnings are there and the issue is to take them
forward, he opined.
He observed that seed is a critical input in
agriculture; Governments and industry are
showing seed replacement as the only way to
improve productivity and making the farmers
continuously dependent on the market.
Today all the external institutions (public and
private) are catering to only 18% of the seed
requirement. Even the seed village programmes
initiated by state departments mimick the same
industrial model. The way forward is only to
emphasise quality seed retention rather than
replacement. Diversity based production
systems should be in the hands of the
community.
Dr. Ramanjaneyulu remarked that Organic
farming which was dismissed earlier as
unproductive is now gaining popularity
because of the market pull. In this regard, he
emphasized that organic farming based on
approaches to solve production problems is
more sustainable rather than being market
driven. On production front, the question is how
we move from a plant-nutrient relationship to
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Saving (Rs/acre)
NPM
1000 4000
2000 13000
300 1200
300 1200
400 1600
225 1775
17
 soil-productivity relationship and how to formulations, economics of ecological benefits, new
measure system’s productivity rather than yield protocols to validate, more participatory methods
per unit cropped area. He said that experiences of knowledge and technology generation from
show that rainfed agriculture benefits by linear top down models and NGOs as partners in
organic farming. knowledge and technology generation than as
passive recipients are the needed elements in
Ramanjaneyulu then spoke about sanskritisation
research area. According to him, extension
of food habits and practices. Green revolution
should be more knowledge centric than
led to monocropping systems. Food security
product centric. Emphasis should be on
comes from a diversity based cropping systems.
approaches like Farmer Field Schools.
In India food subsidies for few irrigated crops
Respecting farmer’s knowledge and using
have pushed farmers to neglect most of the
successful farmers as resource persons is
rainfed crops. And, major part of the current
critical. NGOs and farmers should be treated
subsidy for food is on transport and storage.
as equal partners in planning and designing
Efforts like community grain banks and
rather than as delivery channels. The focus
Alternative Public Distribution system (APDS)
should be on community managed rather than
have solved most of the problems and
community paid. As part of institutional
established decentralized models of food
approach, it is necessary to organize farmers
security. Regarding water problem, he lamented
for better decision making and practice; and it
that we are looking at technological options
is also essential that the labor should be
rather than social regulations. Speaking about
organized to deliver inputs and services like pest
ecological foot prints of food, he said that 1 kg
surveillance, pest management contracts etc.
of rice needs one tanker of water. “…Either we
There is a need to extend public support for
have to move out of rice or improve the
research on ecological farming, promoting
efficiency…”, he strongly felt.
newer partnerships in extension (which are
In the end, Dr.Ramanjaneyulu presented community managed rather than community
needed dimensions for scaling up the proven paid) and also for using, building and
innovations. These are mostly in terms of protecting local resources.
research and extension: New knowledge on crop
ecosystem, efficacy of locally evolved recipes and ■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

18
 Analysis of current Support Systems and
Incentives for Rainfed Farming and
Need for a Differentiated Approach
Shri A. Ravindra
Director, WASSAN
S hri Ravindra’s presentation focused on
analysis of the parity of investments between
rainfed and irrigated agriculture; support
system needs of rainfed areas; rationale for such
support systems and the ways of going about
developing such a new architecture.
The data presented from a quick field study from
few villages in Mahabubnagar district brought
about the disparities in the annual subsidies
between the rainfed and irrigated areas to an
extent of 1500 to 2000 rupees per ha. The
capital cost of developing irrigation potential is
to an extent of Rs.1.30 lakhs per ha. To
promote organic horticulture the National
Horticulture Mission (NHM) is providing
subsidies to an extent of Rs.10,000 per ha. A
vermi-compost unit gets about Rs.30,000 per unit
as subsidy, a drip irrigation system uner NHM
provides about Rs.2000 per ha annual subsidy
(capital cost spread over the life span of the
system). As against these, the total investments
under watershed development program is about
Rs.6,000 per ha -one-time investment for five
years! Citing these examples, Ravindra
presented the inconsistency between the
‘conservation approach’ in watershed
development and the dominant exploitative
production systems generally encouraged by
government. Further, there is disconnect
between ‘diagnosis of issues’ and action
initiated through national planning process.
He observed that the architecture of Green
Revolution took care of every minute detail in
fostering a change- factories were established
to produce fertilizers, infrastructure was
created, price support mechanisms established,
etc. Nothing was left to chance. But,
unfortunately, very little of these subsidies/
investments could be accessed by a rainfed
farmer. This disparity is something that we need
to seriously take stock of, he opined.
The private investments to exploit resources like
ground water piggy-backs on the water
conservation investments in watershed
programs resulting in overexploitation of
groundwater resources! Similar examples were
shown in extension of irrigated horticulture in
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
rainfed areas increasing vulnerability of the
farmers and over exploitation of ground water.
These trends are not incidental, but are an
outcome of the very planning process we have
engineered as a part of the dominant paradigm.
This is not out of ‘farmer’s ignorance’. While
the problem is well acknowledged in several
policy works, no corrective efforts are made, he
observed.
19

Is there a parity in investments?
No. Schemes Rs.
1 Major & medium irrigation/ ha 109,000 to
131,000
2 Organic farming under NHM/ ha 10,000
3 Vermi composting – 30,000
under NHM/ unit
4 Promotion of IPM – 1,000
under NHM/ ha
5 Organic Certification/ ha 10,000
6 Cut flowers/ ha 23,100
7 Bulbulous flowers/ ha 45,000
8 Drip irrigation/ ha annually 2,000
9 Watershed development/ 6,000
ha for 5 years
The question we need to ask is what
production system is appropriate for the rainfed
situations? We should not dismiss this as a
redundant ecological argument but, see it as the
very basis of sustainability of the production
system. There is a role for public policy and
public investments to steer the appropriate
production systems in rainfed areas.
According to Shri Ravindra, most of the farm
support is couched into the physical inputs.
Ironically, ‘convenience and adminstrability’
have become the guiding factors of providing
subsidies rather than the desirability of a
particular process! We must find solutions for
inconvenient but required processes to be
supported. Subsidising Urea rather than
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
nitrogen is one such example and this leaves
farmers ‘no choices’ but to use those inputs. By
chosing a particular material input as a driver
of change, we are promoting a particular
technology and are removing several local
technical options/ choices of farmers for
achieving the same purpose. People who do not
have water, and have marginal lands are left
out of the process. We do not also recognize
20
that labour can be a substitute for capital and
the national planning is inherently biased
against labour support. What is appropriate is
to identify a problem and invest on addressing
the problem rather than promoting specific
input centred technologies, be it fertilizers, drip
irrigation or vermicompost. We have to
innovate upon process related support for
agriculture. Investing on pest surveilliance
mechanisms is another example of investing on
the processes that will reduce pest load by about
20 to 30 per cent.
The Steering Committee of the Planning
Commission looking at agriculture in the XIth
Plan identifies deteriorating soil health as one
of the major problems, but only considers
investing on establishing soil testing
laboratories and soil health cards! How much
biomass could go into the soil was never a
concern; the problem is in converting an
appropriate diagnosis into affirmative action.
With the recent advances in quick composting,
bund plantation etc., it is possible to generate
80 kg nitrogen per ha through a combination
of agronomic measures, composting, tank silt
application etc., if support is available on the
scale of an irrigated farmer. This would be more
enriching and also builds soil health and
improves soil moisture. We must find ways of
supporting/ investing on these nutrient
building processes. If such support is available
large number of farmers would use these
desirable processes.
Similar are the issues with livestock. We must
understand why livestock is moving out of
agriculture. If we can take care of the bullocks
for 3 months an year, they would be brought
back into farming systems and this could be
achieved with investments matching the
subsidy on diesel consumed for land
preparation and weeding. Bullocks in this sense
might compete with mechanization.
Streamlining of bullock power would help in
timely sowing of crops by small and marginal
farmers that in itself improves the productivity
by about 20%. Similarly, supporting graziers,
value addition of fodder etc. and easing critical
small constraints will bring the livestock back
into farming systems. Seperating livestock
systems from agriculture will cost the economy
more as it increases demand on energy and
nutrients. We need to protect such integration.
Goats and sheep have an economic rate of
return equal to IT sector and have very high
income generating potential for the poor. But
they do not receive any public support as a
production system.
He posed a pertinet question: Can we see
water differently? He opined that if the
economics are captured properly, building soil
moisture through building humus in the soil,
might be comparable with drip irrigation in its
efficiency. He also suggested to see water as
food consumed. If we could achieve 25% shift
in the national food consumed towards millets,
we can imagine how much water savings we
could achieve. Can this attract investments, he
probed.
If we reformulate pest management as increas-
ing predator population and reducing the pest
load our program would be different as com-
pared to looking at pest management as increase
in the chemical pesticide consumption. Support
for pest surveilliance, subsidizing summer
ploughting etc., can reduce the pest manage-
ment costs by 40 to 50%. The savings in power
subsidy for the 4 irrigations that could be saved
in SRI paddy, can pay for all weedings, which
seems to be a bottleneck in its promotion.
He felt that we are into an ‘irrigation’ paradigm.
If we can shift to a ‘critical irrigation’ on a large
scale paradigm we can achieve substantial
increase in overall production. We have not in-
vested on borewell irrigation other than power
subsidy. If we can provide for developing
infrastructure in distribution of borewell water
it would enable provision of critical irrigation
support to rainfed crops where the
productivity gains are about 40 to 60%.
Can we differentiate our agriculture policy into
irrigated and rainfed agriculture policies, so that
we can look beyond watersheds and build
support systems required for rainfed areas
rather than extending those available for
irrigated agriculture unsustainably. This will
also help in rainfed areas getting required
investments (beyond watershed development)
which at present are a miniscule of what the
irrigated agriculture is getting. Subsidise the
problem solving but not inputs. There is also
very poor research backup for rainfed areas.
Recognising support for NRM, NPM, soil
fertility improvement etc., as ecosystem
improvements rather than production subsidies
will improve our competitiveness in the world
markets. Cost reduction must be taken as a
primary agenda rather than productivity
improvement alone.
What percent of investments are going to
rainfed areas? Unless the pronouncements of
support are backed up by substantive
investments, the rainfed areas’ problems are not
going to be solved, he remarked.
Concluding his presentation, Shri Ravindra
suggested the needed action to redesign the
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
policy that is suitable for rainfed areas and the
elements of such policy support would be as
below:
● Need to differentiate between Agriculture
Policy for Irrigated Areas and Agriculture
Policy for Rainfed Areas?
● Need to ensure parity of investments (per
ha or per household) in rainfed and
irrigated areas. Need to see beyond
21
 watershed projects
● Not to ‘extend’ the support system designs
for irrigated areas as rainfed areas needs a
‘special dispensation’
● Not to restrict the ‘form’ of subsidies
• Need to shift from ‘Inputs’ to ‘processes’
/ labour and
• ‘Input’ based to ‘output’ based
● Need to allocate enough investments for
rainfed areas and need to move from
‘rhetoric’ to ‘affirmative action’ .
● Need to recognise soil fertility
improvement, NPM as eco-system activities
but not farm-subsidies as these have
enormous gains in the context of
liberalization
● Promoting appropriate community based
institutional systems as a back-bone of the
rainfed areas policies.
Open Discussion
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
C hairperson Dr. Devinder Sharma invited the
lead discussants to make their presentation. Shri
Sandip Das (Down to Earth), initiating the
discussion, cautioned that we should not repeat
the mistake of extending green revolution
technology into rainfed areas. We need new
system of managing water, for e.g. as in
22
● Re-working on the extension institutional
systems – in line with the requirements of
‘knowledge based extension’
● A research back-bone for a new paradigm
- Need to increase research capacities on the
core needs of rainfed areas than making
desperate statements
● Making ‘cost reduction’ as a core principle
for research and action
Finally, he observed that mere ‘district level
planning’ would not solve the problem as the
mindsets of agriculture functionaries and even
farmers are set by the ‘dominant paradigm’. In
this regard, the incremental changes will not
help and it requires a ‘paradigm shift and a bold
leadership’ to really tap the potential of rainfed
areas. He called for a recast in our thinking and
the way we look at rainfed areas development.
■
Ralegaon Siddhi, where they respect water, he
said. He argued that the extension system has
to be revived and that we need a
differentiating agriculture policy. He favoured
an approach of ‘need centric’ rather than
‘input centric’ in extending support to rainfed
agriculture and stressed on integrating livestock
into the farming system.
Dr. Sambhu Prasad (XIMS) stated that the heart
of matter is how knowledge is constituted, not
just technical but institutional. He sought the
need to enquire into the complexities of
different knowledge systems and culture of
innovations by the research establishments. The
next question is how this knowledge is accessed.
He felt that we are bit silent on the crisis of
Indian Agriculture Research. We should accept
that the knowledge is not reposited in research
alone – but is available in open systems also.
We have to make the best of the opportunities
in the new architectural structure. In this
regard he cited the expansion of System of Rice
Intensification (SRI) in the country. New
varieties are being challenged only by SRI.
Reinforcing what Ravindra stated earlier he said
that the definitions of the problems are clear
but all the solutions are not clear. He also
emphasized on the need to have ‘creative space’
in evolving necessary policy measures, what he
termed as creating cultures of micro
interventions. He shared the experience of
learning alliance in SRI in Orissa. SRI yields in
Purulia rainfed areas are promising. In Tripura,
there is an effort in which SRI was taken up in
14,000 hectares of land within 2-3 years and
this was done by the Agricultural Department
in convergence with Panchayat Raj
Department. These sort of experiences need to
be related to the context of rainfed farming. And
for that there should be ‘learning alliances’, he
concluded.
Prof. M.R. Sharma (National Horticultural
Mission) said that horticulture has more
potential in rainfed agriculture and that the
Mission is focusing on upgrading some of its
components. He urged for convergence among
research, extension and policy makers so as to
better utilize the potential. He wanted the
bankers to consider loans without collateral. He
said that NHM has focused on the
interventions for small & marginal farmers; as
well as organic practices and certification for
the same.
Dr. Amita Shah (Gujarat Institute of
Development Research) pointed the need to go
beyond the dichotomy of irrigated and rainfed
agriculture. Stating that we have to have fairly
unified understanding on what type of
agriculture we want in the next 5 to 10 years,
which should be then differentiated according
to the ecological regions. She felt that much of
what the speakers said is applicable to irrigated
agriculture also. She said that what we are
talking about is sustainable agriculture. Rainfed
farming needs macro policy on pricing and
subsidies; creating markets. She concluded by
saying that more fund and decentralization will
not begin the necessary paradigm shift.
Shri Shailendra Tiwari (Seva Mandir) informed
that CPRs play a major role in rainfed farming.
In Rajasthan, the extent of CPRs is more than
the private lands and most of these CPRs are
encroached by the village landlords and elite.
Stating that this is as a result of ill governance,
he opined that the trend is not irreversible. He
said that this does not need revolutionary
changes but only revival of traditional
institutions of management. He commented
that we never had institutions which are
pro-poor. He also emphasized on improving the
weather forecasting system. Farmers need to
know the availability of water for a particular
crop at a particular time.
Dr. M.S Chari (Former Director, CTRI, ICAR
and Managing Trustee – CSA) observed that
even the miniscule subsidies available for
farmers in rainfed areas are not reaching them.
For example NHM gives Rs. 1,000/ as subsidy
in the name of IPM, which will go to the
pesticide industry and not the farmer. He also
informed that pest surveillance system is
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
available, but the forecasting system is very bad,
which needs to be revamped. Shri Gopi Krishna
(Jana Jagaran) suggested that we should get out
of the water and irrigation paradigm and focus
on semi-arid and arid regions rather than
confining to rainfed areas, which works in real
time paradigm and with more of open type
system. He emphasized that we should have
systems that can respond to the diverse
situations.
23
 Dr. J. Venkateswarlu (Former Director, CAZRI)
shared about the experience in Cuba where the
organic farming is intensively promoted. He
called for change in research from chemical to
organic. He stressed the need for revival of
traditional cascade of tank systems. He talked
about System of Rice Intensification as a
concept which is now not limited to paddy but
also extended to other crops like castor,
sunflower in Gujarat.
Dr. Pathak (National Horticultural Mission)
informed that the subsidy for promotion of IPM
under the Mission is increased from Rs 1000/-
to Rs 5000/-. He also observed that apart from
horticulture, there are number of crops suitable
for rainfed areas. He suggested that only
wasteland should be allocated for horticulture.
Dr. M.A. Shankar (University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore) questioned whether the
paradigm shift is for economical and viable
farming or for sustainable farming systems,
where the land holding itself is small.
Responding to the discussion, Dr.
Ramanjaneyulu (CSA) observed that ‘this is the
time to learn from new experiences and
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
24
innovations and also to rethink and change our
mindsets’. There is dearth of investment in
focused research. The ‘tragedy of India’ is that
governments are more willing to invest on
foreign trips of MPs and MLAs to ‘learn’, but
not interested in taking them to villages to see
the ‘grassroot realities’. He also found fault with
the existing pattern of promoting external
nutrients and ‘packing’ the rainfed areas with
hybrid varieties of seeds.
Concluding the session Shri Devinder Sharma
observed that if you have something to sell then
you have funding. Earlier only NPK were
commercial commodities; now we are
importing earthworms. Citing the example of
cow he said that our mindset is that nothing in
our country is good. Problem of rainfed areas
began when NAS said that these areas are
hungry for fertilizer and we only promoted
what the industry wanted. He said that there is
lot that can be done without the industrialized
inputs. He commended the two speakers who
have set the agenda to re-look at the macro
situation.
■
 SESSION - III
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Chairperson
Dr. Ram Badan Singh, Member, National Commission on Farmers
Co-chairperson
Dr. S.P. Wani, Principal Scientist, ICRISAT
Rapporteur
Shri Sachin Oza, Executive Director, DSC
25
 Decentralized Food Security in Rainfed Areas
Involving Different Types Of Millets and Pulses
Shri P.V. Satheesh
Director, Deccan Development Society (DDS)
S hri Satheesh made the presentation by
showing a video film produced by Community
Media Trust, Pastapur, Medak in Andhra
Pradesh on the concept of decentralized food
security. It strongly depicted how an organized
village community could take up the challenge
and evolve an efficient institutional process for
ensuring the food security.
He concluded his presentation by raising few
critical issues. Introduction of rice into the diet
of rainfed areas not only caused anemia, but
the crop requires high rainfall and flat lands
which is quite unsuitable to rainfed areas. Thus,
cultivation of paddy in dryland areas in fact
increased the fallow land leading to further
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
degradation. To grow one kilo of rice, 3000
liters of water is required and each acre of
irrigated area takes 6 million litres of water. In
economic terms, the cost of this water use would
be 60,000 rupees per acre. He strongly
criticized the way the external factors are
influencing our life patterns. In this context, he
commented that the “food’ has now become a
‘media construct’. If they say, eat burger, we
eat burger, this is the irony of present situation.
26
Shri Satheesh said that through DDS’s effort,
women were able to not only cultivate the
fallow land but also introduced grain banks in
the villages. He pointed out that there are
several such experiences which can address
food security, ecological balance, gender,
livelihood concerns with dalit focus. In this
regard he made few suggestions for policy shift
for rainfed farming. He said that the profile of
dry land crops should be raised on par with
irrigated, resource guzzling crops. Dryland
farmers in general, millet growers in particular
should be honoured as water conservers.
Farmers should be compensated with water
bonus, conservation bonus and climate change
bonus. Minimum Support Price for millets
should be enhanced. Millets are 6 times
nutritious than rice and he argued that they
should be introduced into PDS, FFW, ICDS, mid
day meal, social welfare hostels, etc.
He also suggested that the rainfed agriculture
should be recognised as intrinsically biodiverse
and for the way dryland farming fixes Carbon;
it should be given conservation incentives. It is
a livelihood provider and this is not talked about
which is the bias of the media and the elite. It
creates lot of rural enterprises; whereas Reliance
and Wall Mart are the death nail of rural
community, he observed. If we consider that
each hectare of land can create at least 2 jobs,
imagine the potential of 100 million hectares of
rainfed area in creating employment
opportunities, he questioned.
On credit front, Shri Satheesh felt that there
need to be a bias towards rainfed farmer. A specific landraces/ varieties and improving them
grape farmer gets more than one lakh rupees rather than withdrawing from the seed sector.
Bank finance whereas a sorghum farmer gets Developing farmer led extension systems and
Rs. 1600 only. With regard to seeds, there is farmer-led research at all SAUs and research
enormous demand for them which is reflected stations is need of the hour. There is also a need
in the agitations in some parts of the country. to develop long term strategy for each agro
There are also incidents where the farmers are climatic zone based on the specific situations
‘fired upon’ for seeking quality seeds. In and create new non corporate organic markets
Anantapur in the rush for the seed 7 farmers controlled by small farmers. Community
were trampled to death. Why we are creating supported farming need to be promoted where
such a fuss when there is scope for creating there will be dynamic interface between
community seed banks, he questioned. It was farmers and consumers.
suggested that State Agricultural Universities
(SAUs) can be encouraged to scout for location ■
Low External Input based Sustainable Agriculture
(LEISA)
Synthesis of Experiences from India and Abroad
Dr. Arun Balamatti
Executive Director, AME Foundation
A s a concept and approach, LEISA denotes
Low External Input based Sustainable
Agriculture. Low does not mean no external
inputs, and External is in the sense of self
reliance. Input is regarding where it comes from
and Sustainability is looking at future;
Agriculture is not just farming. LEISA aims at
improving and stabilising the productivity of the

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

farming system, and reducing cost by
generating inputs within the village – viable,
accessible and acceptable to farmers. Emphasis
is on use of local resources which are
environmental friendly. Organic farming is not
synonymous to LEISA; it is a distant dream for
dryland farmers, it is not averse to modern
technology but a blend of both indigenous and
modern technologies. It is a basket of options
for farmers to choose from.
AME Foundation has major thrust on dry land
farming with LEISA approach. The rain water
in the dryland farming is given, but it is
possible to retain it for longer time with some
simple practices. On-farm natural resource
conservation (NRC), natural resource
utilization (NRU) and better utilization of
27
 resources through crop combinations are
promoted. Farmer groups are being empowered
through participatory processes. Three basic
operations of the organization include: Rain
water conservation; upgrading soil fertility and
crops. It is not merely introducing technologies,
the focus is on the capacity building of the
farmers and the enablers and the requirements
of the two groups are different.
The experience demonstrated that backward
and forward linkages are necessary conditions
but they alone are not sufficient. As the farmer
is the end user of resources, production
technologies and development facilities, the
need is to build capacities of small and
marginal farmers (middle level) in handling
natural resources and managing farming as an
enterprise.
He commented that we are in a situation where
Overview of Field Experiences with
IPM and INM Approaches
Shri W.R. Reddy
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
W hile focusing on the IPM as the holistic
approach for sustainable pest management, this
presentation elaborated on its different
approaches and strategies at different levels.
28
farming is externalized; even dryland farmers
are now dependent on market for seeds. He said
that the issue is not only the cost but also
reliability. Even in rainfed farming the elite
farmers are enterprising, but the majority of the
middle level farmers are starving for
information. Farming from subsistence has
moved on to market; now they have to
generate the income.
He suggested a paradigm shift that should
consider that the farmers need hand holding
for better utilization of resources (less
exploitative). This should also consider the
redefined role of enablers and the extension
approaches (PTD and FFS in University
curriculum) and that development is a shared
responsibility; CSO can never provide the scale;
but can provide the models.
■
Taking reference of FAO on this approach,
Mr. Reddy stated that IPM is not just about
management of pests alone but it is a holistic
approach of crop production based on sound
ecological understanding. Listing the problems
of unscientific pest management; he said that
IPM gives enhanced income to the farmers.
Biological forms of management are effective,
but are not known to the farmers, Reddy
opined. These have proven successful in
sugarcane and coconut. He suggested that this
technology should be taken to the farmers and
made available. IPM is against the calendar
based pesticide application. Paddy farmers are
undertaking 8 to 9 sprays for BPH; this is Farmers will be able to identify the harmful and
weekly/ 10 day scheduled sprays, which can beneficial insects in the field. It is a season long
be avoided. process and meeting is usually once in a week.
IPM Facilitators or Farmer facilitators who have
There are different approaches in IPM. Earlier
undergone season-long training will run FFS.
thrust was on component based IPM: the
The plant capacity to regenerate is tested by
emphasis was on cultural, mechanical,
farmers through small experiments such as
biological and chemical methods with focus on
defoliation. They also compare sprayed and
ETL. Later Pest: defender ratio was adopted.
unsprayed plots and discover functions of
Presently the core theme of IPM is Agro
organisms in the eco-system including crop pest
Ecosystem Analysis (AESA); This is against
and their natural enemies. The farmers are
practice of calendar based application of
assisted in solving their problems by themselves;
chemical pesticides irrespective of occurrence
they are not provided with ready made
of pests. AESA is based on the principle of
solutions. The facilitators expose farmers to
interaction between different components of
ideas and will not try to convince the farmers
agro-ecosystem including abiotic factors. The
to adopt a particular technology. In the
strategy for IPM related trainings encompassed
process, FFS farmers will become ‘active
developing IPM facilitators, organizing Farmer’s
evaluators of technology’ instead of ‘passive
Field Schools (FFSs) to train farmers and
acceptors of input advice’. At the end it is
evolving Farmer Facilitators.
evaluated by the farmers and the experienced
For developing IPM facilitators, season long farmers are used for further extension.
trainings are organized with ‘Participatory,
Concluding the presentation, Mr.Reddy
Practical, Field Oriented and Discovery based
observed that IPM need not exclude pesticides
(learning by doing)’ orientation. Non-formal
but as far as possible avoid or limit chemical
education approaches were used throughout.
pesticide. He called upon ‘No Pesticide
The focus was on development of confidence
Movement’ not to mislead farmers, but strive
to help farmers discover and make decisions;
for promoting IPM. Seed treatment with IPM is
and enable them to organize quality FFSs. The
a very good practice, for which there are
training is fully residential and 2 hectares of land
chemical and biological treatments; their cost is
is made available for raising crop by trainees.
low and will reduce the use of pesticides. He
Training is season-long with 2 or 3 small breaks.
said that taking this approach to the farmers or
This is about 150 days for cotton, on site
making the biological agent available is a
excluding the breaks and it covers all aspects of
challenge. Is there a repeat request for

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

crop management. There would be 30-36
trainees in a batch with 4-5 facilitators. On s
uccessful training, the facilitators organized
FFSs to train farmers, not just on cotton, but
also on other crops. They also developed Farmer
Trainers to run Farmer –Farmer Field School.
FFS is a community based, practical field study
programme where farmers learn together
using hands-on methods of discovery learning.
biological agents and is it available, he
wondered. IPM is much more relevant and
required in rainfed farming. Concluding the
presentation, Mr. Reddy wanted the
participants to think of a system where
government can support viability gap funding
for agriculture graduates to establish say a soil
lab or biological lab.
■
29
 A New Paradigm for Rainfed Agriculture for
Improving Livelihoods and Sustainable
Development in India
Dr. S.P. Wani
Principal Scientist, ICRISAT
D r. Wani’s presentation focused on the
comprehensive assessment of water for food
and reducing poverty. It also stressed on the
need to harness the vast potential of rainfed
agriculture. It showed how IPM through a
blend of chemical and organic application of
fertilizers could increase the productivity of the
soil. Basing on solid field research, Dr. Wani
emphasized on the need to provide substantial
economic incentives for promoting organic and
biological nutrient sources to benefit rainfed
We should focus on the trade offs. Last 33 years
agriculture. This allocation should not only be
data on large plots proved that dryland
on area basis but also equity basis. It will lead
agriculture can produce more, the potential is
to sustainable development and enhancing
there and the growth rate is not less than
rainwater use efficiency, he argued.
irrigated agriculture. One ha of irrigated
Rainfed Agriculture contributes 60 percent of agriculture supports only 4 persons, whereas
world’s food from 80 percent of cultivated land. dryland agriculture provides support to 20.
Dr.Wani termed it as ‘home of world’s poor and
He pointed out that Rainfed agriculture
malnourished people’. The problem is that the
depends on rainfall infiltrated in the soil and
yields from rain-fed agriculture are low in
green water consumption is almost 3-fold more
semi-arid tropical agro ecosystems. Though the
than blue water consumed for food production
green revolution drove away food shortage of
(5000 vs 1800 km3 yr-1). In this context there is
1960’s but, ‘it was at a cost’. Irrigated
a need to change the way we think about
agriculture accounts for more than 70 percent
water and agriculture; artificial divide between
of water withdrawals and there are competing
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

irrigated and rainfed agriculture need to be

demands for water. He boldly stated that we
discarded. Rainfed systems are to be upgraded
need to change our thinking on water and
in a holistic way. Small catchment
agriculture; we need to discard the artificial
management could be one such effective
divide between rainfed and irrigated
instruments. He felt that poverty can be ‘fought’
agriculture and there is no way that we can
by improving access to agricultural water and
neglect the rainfed agriculture. He emphasized
its use. For that there is a need to enhance
that small catchment scale water harvesting and
water use efficiency and deal with trade-off and
supplemental irrigation will go a long way. Our
make different choices.
emphasis should be on the Water Use Efficiency;
otherwise we cannot meet the demand for food. Dr. Wani suggested to harness the vast
30
‘untapped’ potential of rainfed agriculture. He
said that productivity of rainfed agriculture can
be doubled with the available technology, we
know what to do but not how to do it.
Community watersheds are silently
revolutionizing the rainfed agriculture, though
there are some issues that need to be addressed.
In this sense, more investments in rainfed
agriculture are needed to cover large area and
adopt holistic livelihood approach.
Convergence of watershed programs in the
country and efficient sustainable institutional
mechanisms from community-district-state-
national level are urgently needed. Enabling
policies for sustainable development and use of
water and land resources also need to be
evolved.
According to Dr. Wani, Indian rainfed soils are
‘Thirsty and Hungry’ as reflected in an analysis
of 3622 soil samples from farmers’ fields in
Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,
Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka.
Organic Farming through various initiatives in
India - from impoverishment to Empowerment with
Productivity, Profitability and Sustainability for
Farmers and Farming
Shri Ashok Bang
Director, AARC, Chetana Vikas
S hri Ashok’s presentation was based on
There is widespread deficiency of
micronutrients and there is also evidential
participatory research and demonstration that
crop yields would increase substantially with
application of Zn, B and S. He suggested that
in the short term ‘mapping of nutrient
deficiencies’ country wide and measures to
rectify deficiencies are needed and in the
long-term, state of the art soil analysis
laboratories at district level need to be
established to provide necessary information to
the farmers. Enabling policies for promoting
organic sources of fertilizers and bio-pesticides
are also needed.
In conclusion Dr. Wani observed that the
‘productivity of Rainfed Agriculture could be
doubled and livelihoods of small farmers can
be improved substantially with the available
technologies’. It needs serious efforts and
investments (a new paradigm) to put suitable
mechanism in place to ‘translate potential into
actual yield and income’. ■

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

experiences of farmers located in Vidharba of
Maharastra, a farmers’ suicide affected area. He
started by saying that modern science and
technology can create problems, which are not
just economic. In Vidharba more than 1000
farmers have committed suicide, which is
continuing. The reasons are debt trap and this
is happening not only in Vidharba but also in
neighbouring states and mostly in rainfed
31
 areas. The problems are well known.
The model that he presented was developed
under farmers conditions. He exuded confidence
that though the model is in stage 1, it helps
farmer to go ahead in substantial measures and
take off is possible.
The key features of this model are natural
resource management, i.e. soil & water
conservation; with inside field bunds done by
village engineers (trained at the centre). This
resulted in 5 week tolerance for rainfall fail.
Other features include appropriate seeds which
are not high-input-varieties, use of local labour,
skills, wisdom, renewable bullock power and
other low-external-input but high-internal-
regeneration-of-input techniques, which are
organic. Consortium of more than 35
companion crops (food & cash crops) provided
the synergy effect. It gave rich diversity of food
crops for family consumption giving food
security, affordable nutrition security and
improvement of soil health on various scientific
parameters.
The next cornerstone is 35 different crops in 1
ha which efficiently captures the solar energy
of 1200 kg Cal/ day/ sq. ft. This 35 crop mix is
carefully planned to give the desired benefits.
This includes cash crops, cereals, pulses, etc. The
sowing takes one to one and half days. Most of
the family needs are met from the farm. Net
income from 1 hectare, for which data is
available from 7 years, is increasing. Millions of
farmers can be brought above poverty line with
this model he said. Total net income has
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
increased from Rs. 5000 in 2nd year to Rs.24,000
in the 7th year. It gives better soil fertility, and
rich and nutritious food. This food and
nutrition security is affordable and sovereignty
lies with the farmer. Apart from 1500 kg of
manure there is no external input. On 7
different parameters the soil health
improvement is seen over 5 years. About 100
farmers have adopted this model, most of them
32
are resource poor, including some women.
This presentation provided the necessary
statistical data and case studies of some
farmers who adopted this model. This
experience in essence assures higher
productivity, profitability, sustainability and low
risk for rainfed areas, with several other
benefits.
Shri Ashok Bang suggested some measures and
support systems for upscaling this initiative.
These include providing recurring inputs for pest
and disease management, appropriate seeds etc.
Infrastructure like cattle shed with non-
absorbent flooring for urine and droppings,
biogas, toilets for recycling of human waste,
godown and warehousing, bullocks and
improved implements, etc. The needed
institutional framework consists of Self Help
Groups (SHG) of women and men, of farmers,
of consumers for healthy food, Participatory
Guarantee Scheme of Certification (PGS) and
strengthening local markets and producer-
consumer relationship. Capacity Building
through different means like improving
knowledge, skills, live demonstrations on
resource centers and farmers’ fields,
organizing exposure visits etc. need to be
facilitated. Improved weather forecast facility
with expanded outreach should be provided.
In the financial front, establishing Price
Stabilization Fund (PSF) and providing crop loan
for organic manures, wages, bullocks etc. are
the implications.
There are some overall policy considerations
relating to these aspects. He said that farmers
can do most of the things if they are provided
remunerative & stable prices for agro-produce
and focus to be shifted away from wheat and
rice to nutritious cereals and pulses. In this sense
there is a need to ‘help farmers feed themselves
with dignity’. Efforts should also be there to
support resource centres.
■
 Building a Farmers Owned Company (Chetana)
Producing and Trading Fair Trade-Organic
Products
Shri H. Lanting
CEO, ETC Consultants India
S hri Lanting presented his work on organic
farming in India which started with small scale
agriculture in 1993. He shared that farmers
organizations are built called Chetana for
marketing organic products. It is a program
implemented in 3 states: Andhra Pradesh
(Asifabad and Karimnagar), Maharashtra
(Vidarbha: Akola, Yavatmal), Tamil Nadu
(Dindigul, Tuticorn). The intervention started
in May 2004 with 240 farmers and presently
there are about 5500 farmers participating in input suppliers. An internal approval
the program. A total of about 20,000 acres is committee was set up that allocates
covered and total raw cotton yield is expected certification status to member farmers.
to be about 5,000 tons which means about 1,700
tons of lint. Food crop yield will be at least 8000 Among the financial interventions, credit and
Metric tons, mainly pulses. savings system was enabled among farmer
groups 6 months ahead of agricultural season.
The interventions started with organizing Linkages with rural banks were facilitated for
farmers in small groups of 20 who are first those farmers who wish to avail loans and
trained in aspects of group functioning and farmers’ groups were assisted in getting access
thrift operations. These groups are in turn to government schemes. Societies were
federated into MACS (Mutually Aided Co- supported in setting up their financial
operative Societies). Further these societies were administration.
integrated into (Producers) a company called
‘CHETANA’. Groups of farmer inspectors were Financial interventions include savings and

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

developed to conduct internal inspection.
Groups of farmer trainers train new entrants
into the program. There are also groups of
farmer representatives that can play role in
farmers’ organization that is being set-up and
enter into agreements with banks, buyers and
government. Marketing committees of farmers
at society level were set up to interact at farmer
- buyer meets and enter into agreements with
facilitating linkages with banks. Market
inventions include linkages with input
suppliers and provide training on all market
requirements. Interactions between certifying
bodies and farmers are facilitated, logistics of
marketing are also facilitated.
As part of market interventions, linkages were
established with input suppliers and trainings
provided on aspects like quality, certification
33
 requirements and post harvest handling.
Interactions between certifying bodies and the
farmers were facilitated. Relationships were
established among potential buyers. Support
for farmers was extended in negotiation
process in terms of prices, delivery and payment
schedules and other logistics.
Improved seed, seed treatment, enriched
compost, intercropping, watershed
interventions, drainage and farm ponds are part
of technical interventions. As part of biomass
generation, Glyricidia was raised on bunds and
Sunhemp as border crop. This and use of weeds
gave 4 to 5 tonnes of compost per acre from the
third year. Horsegram was sown as green
manure crop. Shri Lanting shared that
Panchgavya and poultry manure were tried.
Various organic measures were undertaken for
Pest and Disease Management.
Lanting said that what started with 240
farmers in 2004 now reached 5500 farmers with
20,000 acres under organic cultivation. Some
major benefits observed with this initiative are:
Organic cotton fetches Rs. 2500 instead of
Rs. 1800 per quintal. Pest load is low. Risks for
farmers is decreasing as they use mainly own
inputs. Health of farmers and workers is better
due to no exposure to pesticides: a family saves
about Rs 1500 per annum on medical expenses.
Pest incidence in organic farms is surprisingly
low.
He observed that the main problem is
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
converting the farmers to fully organic, but no
premium price is paid because it is in transition
stage in food products. Storage facility is needed,
with cash paid (preferably 70% of the crop
34
value) for the stored products. Rural banking
should be strengthened and loaning process
should be made simpler.
Lanting stated that working with small
farmers is not viable as the investment in
guiding and training per farmer and per Kg of
cotton is high. To become popular Organic
cotton crop needs that it should be a major crop;
it should not be threatened by less labour
requiring crops and It should be yielding 4 qtls/
acre (if the yields are higher it will be replaced
by Bt cotton).
In the end, Lanting observed that organic fair
trade market will remain a relatively small niche
market with at most a market share of say 5%.
Building linkages with reliable quality input
suppliers and banks is a must. Government
schemes for land development and biomass
production as well as organic inputs can be
availed. Building linkages with buyers and
having buy-back arrangements in place is also
crucial. Government could give a helping hand
in the first three years of changing over to
organic farming by providing preferred access
to markets for the prospective organic farmers,
this will reduce drop-out rate.
The program demands subsidies to the tune of
Rs 10,000 per farmer per year (or Rs 2000 per
acre) for a period of 3 years over and above any
subsidies given on inputs or land development.
If buyers are ready to pay for certification costs,
then subsidies can be reduced. A farmer will
earn per year an additional income of about Rs
5000. Break-even of the investment can thus be
expected within 7 years.
■
 Beyond Certified Organic Farming: An Emerging
Paradigm for Rainfed Agriculture
Dr. N.K. Sanghi
Adviser, WASSAN
T his presentation tried to make a case for the
new paradigm (which can be called as
ecological farming), which is beyond the
certified organic farming as well as the
conventional chemical farming.
Before presenting the key features of the
proposed approach, Dr.Sanghi tried to
differentiate it from the chemical as well as the
certified organic farming paradigms. The key
features of chemical farming are high
non-chemical methods of pest management
dependence on external inputs, credit and
(NPM). It can be with limited farmers during
extension. The organic farming on the other
first year which may lead to a ‘pesticide free
hand, is an intensive process, mostly limited to
village’ in about 3-4 years. The NPM approach
resource rich farmers, export market and
has high social relevance as reflected in
depends heavily on external support in terms
reduction of suicides and pesticide induced
of price, market intelligence, certification of
severe sickness (as per the field experience in
produce, etc. Hence the scope of coverage and
Punukula village of Khammam district, Andhra
social relevance of the organic farming is also
Pradesh). The next step, focuses on selling the
limited.
pesticide free produce in local market at the
Main objectives of the proposed ecological existing market price during the first year which
farming are maintenance of high productivity, can be increased subsequently through small
reduction in cost of production and value addition. In third step, community
enhancement in self reliance. The advantages managed seed bank can be established with
are that it caters to both resource poor and improved varieties (to begin with). During
resource rich, the process is simple and subsequent years hybrids evolved under public

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

external support is needed in terms of exposure
visit and little hand holding. It mainly addresses
the needs of local market. The scope of
coverage and social relevance is also high.
There are 4 major steps in adoption of the
ecological farming. These are not sequential but
can be overlapped depending upon the
circumstances. The first step is the adoption of
sector can be included. The last step is the
adoption of Non chemical methods of Nutrient
Management (NNM). It can be initiated with
limited farmers during initial years depending
upon availability of raw materials. Through
increase in biomass and livestock population
number of farmers can be increased.
This ecological approach is indigenous but
35
 gradually disappearing due to constraints in
labour availability. It can now be revived
through incentive of labour under NREG
scheme. SHGs and their federations can be part
of the institutional framework for promoting
ecological farming. The services of para
workers, successful farmers can be utilized and
experienced NGOs and GOs could provide
technical support. Financial support for
recurring inputs can be extended through
revolving fund / institutional credit while the
one-time investment on equipments, etc can be
made through contributory approach.
Dr.Sanghi suggested certain follow up action /
Lead Discussion
Decentralized Food Security System: Experiences and Lessons
S tating that the PDS is a failed policy Dr. Ch.
Radhika Rani, NIRD shared the experiences
related to decentralized food security system
based on local resources. She stressed on two
options: upscaling the Community Grain Bank
model of Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies
and involving Panchayat as part of Rural
Godown Scheme. Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj departments should also be
involved in procurement and distribution of food
grains as it is happening in states like Karnataka.
She suggested to include Pulses and Millets into
the Public Distribution System by procuring
them at the market rate as this would
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
encourage their production.
Dr.Radihika Rani felt that there is no need for
creating alternate institutional mechanism for
power sector. What is needed is ensuring 9 hours
of uninterrupted power supply to rainfed
farmers through the existing institutional,
functional framework. She laid emphasis on
formation of Commodity Groups and
Commodity Boards. These Boards could be
36
policy considerations for promoting ecological
approach. There is a need to document and
analyze the successful experiences irrespective
of source of innovation. A new scheme needs
to be formulated for organization of SHGs,
federations and CIGs on a large scale. Labour
incentives under NREG should be provided for
shifting towards ecological farming. Financial
assistance as revolving fund need to be provided
to build corpus at federation of SHGs. He
concluded his presentation by referring to the
noted Gandhian Nirmala Desh Pande’s lecture
emphasizing on ‘Non Violent Agriculture’.
■
made functional through effective public and
private partnership through their involvement
for input supply, technical support and output
marketing.
She made few suggestions regarding effective
delivery of services. Strengthening Farmers
Clubs and promoting models like E- Choupal
were among them. She also suggested to
establish primary processing facilities at village
level under the purview of Panchayat. Efforts
should be made to promote use of organic
manure either through SHGs or by individuals.
State government should make efforts to
distribute the organic manure to farmers trade policy, she felt that there should be proper
through Panchayats on subsidy basis. It was correspondence between domestic trade and
also suggested to promote SHGs to take up lease tariff policy and there is a need to involve CACP
farming. She favoured land reforms to be in in the process.
favour of legalizing tenancy towards SHGs. On ■
Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank -
A grain bank promoted by NABARD
S hri D. K. Routray, AGM, NABARD presented
about one of Bank’s initiatives in Kalahandi
district of Orissa to address the issue of food
security. Thuamul Rampur is the third most
under developed block among 314 blocks of
Orissa. This tribal dominated block is a malaria
endemic zone with innumerable problems.
These increased the tribals vulnerability. 63%
households face food stress for about 6 months
and another 23% face the same for 3-5 months.
Only 3% of households had food security for
with an innovative approach where the SHGs
entire year. People take loan in the form of cash
played the vital role. It proved that the
and grains from the local money lenders which
commercial banks also have role in sustaining
ultimately led most of them into loan trap. Loan
the grain banks. The characteristics of this
for food used to be taken for 70 days in a year.
initiative are: synergy between SHGs and Grain
Crop diversity, forest based economy and bank, monetizing the grain savings and stock
Kutumb Panthi (Traditional village bank of for bank linkage, decentralized and flexible
grains) were part of the traditional coping norms for operation, adoption of traditional
mechanism. Factors like depletion of forest cover, storage system, easy repayments and linkages
introduction of cash crops, free grazing, with seed bank, PDS and government programs.
natural calamities and punitive law/regulations
This project covered 17 tribal dominated villages
restricting access to land resources gradually led
in two Gram Panchayats consisting of 353
to food insecurity among the tribals. Kutumb
vulnerable families, predominantly STs. 29
Panthi also got destroyed in course of time. Some
SHGs (all women) were formed which had

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

grain banks established by NGO’s which became
Rs.162230/- as cash savings and 1886 Kgs of
defunct due to various reasons. Grain banks
grain savings. These SHGs were provided with
were promoted with support from ITDA also.
ITDA Revolving fund and also linked with
Matching support in terms of grain & storage
banks. 20 quintals of rice was given to each
facilities made these grain banks functional with
Gram Panchayat as matching grant. 3 Central
monitoring done by the NGOs. But they were
Grain Banks (Maltipadar, Sikerguda, Silet) were
also plagued with repayment issues.
established and storage houses were
In these circumstances, NABARD promoted constructed. All SHG members were covered
Kalahandi Anchalika Gramya Bank - a grain bank under S S scheme of LIC India.
37
 Operationalizing this was not a smooth affair.
It consisted of enough challenges in terms of
monetising the economy, developing banking
habit and managerial skills, substituting
moneylenders in an effective manner,
providing grain and money under single
window. Establishing market linkages for the
SHG products was a difficult task. It was
difficult for the community to sustain the grain
bank in the face of threats from the money
lenders. Sustaining the community feeling & peer
pressure and integrating with other income
generating programs was another challenge.
Inspite of these issues, there were benefits to
Jaivik Krishi
D r. R. K. Pathak, Chief Consultant- National
Horticulture Mission (NHM) explained about
this innovative organic production system. It is
an integration of selected techniques from
different existing organic production systems
like Biodynamic Farming, Panchagavya
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Open Discussion
A t the outset, there were observations that
agronomical measures were not given enough
attention in the presentations. Some also
enquired about the validation parameters for
approaches like Jaivik Krishi and it was
observed that ‘over universalization inspite of
spatial variability’ is to be dealt with caution.
38
both the community and NABARD. SHGs
became distinct platforms for socio – cultural &
economic development and they could avail
loan in the form of cash and grain from the same
point. Women empowerment process got
strengthened and exploitation by money
lenders reduced. Community got fair price for
their produce and distress sale was reduced.
Linkages were established with Bank and other
Institutions and Bank expanded its clientele. An
innovative banking system was developed and
reinforcement through grain bank led to better
recovery of loans.
■
Farming, Rishi Krishi, Homa Organic farming,
Nateuco Farming, Natural Farming etc. The
uniqueness of this approach lies in its
adherence to an agricultural calendar. He
explained about seed treatment with Bija Mitra,
preparation of bio-enhancer Ziwa Mitra,
Mulching, Nutrient Management with legumes
and bio enhancers like Zeevamrita/ Panchagavya
/ Vermi wash etc, pest and disease management
with organic pesticides, herbicides and
appropriate crop rotation. He concluded his
presentation by observing that “…if under
taken with organic mind set, ‘Jaivik Krishi’ is a
ray of hope to sustain soil fertility and quality
of life on this planet…”
■
Dr. J. Venkateswarlu pointed out that
ecological farming is not just about crops but
also includes livestock and biomass components.
Shri Ashok Bang observed that ‘soil should be
seen not as static or dead entity but as a
dynamic living process’. Focusing on the labour
intensity aspect Dr. Bandi Venkateshwarlu
questioned about the kind of ‘mechanization’
that can be included and possible collaboration
between technical knowledge and field needs.
There were heated moments on the discussion
about soil nutrient management whether it
should be with external fertilizers or with
internal organic matter. Responding to a
Rainfed Areas must get centre stage
Dr. Ram Badan Singh
Member, National Commission on Farmers
C hairperson Dr. Ram Badan Singh (Member,
National Commission on Farmers) concluded
the session with his remarks on the
presentations and subsequent discussion. On
soil nutrient management, he remarked that
“Soils are thirsty and hungry ... if a child is
hungry, he should be fed today… not
tomorrow.” The need is to have a corrective
system that addresses the issue scientifically. It
should be ‘friendly’ to the soil and not ‘harm’ it.
Since rainfed areas had low soil nutrients and
inadequate, erratic rainfall, the focus of
intervention should be on improving the soil
and moisture regime. Further the per hectare
availability of cultivable land was also
shrinking, therefore it is all the more important
that the results of interventions are measured
on ‘crop per drop’ basis i.e. how much water is
used for cultivating a particular crop and how
the water use efficiency can be improved. He
also felt that since about 225 million people were
dependent on these areas for food security, there
was a need to have a balance between organic
and chemical inputs. The ICRISAT study did
show that it was possible to increase
productivity per hectare without harming the
environment.
He observed that rainfed areas must get centre
stage in social, economical and political scene.
question, Dr. Wani observed that, “….the choice
should be left to the patient after making the
diagnosis. Let the farmer decide if he wants to
add organic matter for addressing the
deficiencies of soil...”. Ram Badan Singh felt that
the spurious inputs should be controlled; the
first thing is to fight corruption. ■
Resource allocation must be at least on par with
allocation to the irrigational areas. Till date
emphasis was given to improve irrigated
agriculture by spending huge investments, but
still 2/3 of area in the country is under rainfed
conditions. Policies and programs should try
and see how productivity in this vast area could
be increased.
As the rainfed areas are marked by high
poverty, the focus of attention should be to
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
ensure livelihood security he emphasized. Thus,
a total farming systems approach that entails
the comprehensive livelihoods framework,
which included livestock and horticulture, is
most important component in the rainfed and
semi-arid areas. Since rainfed areas have
fragile ecosystem, eco-friendly agricultural
practices need to be adopted. He suggested
that the new paradigm may be termed as ‘green
39
 agriculture’, ‘eco-friendly approach’, etc. and National Horticulture Mission that can be
allocated to address the concerns of theses
Dr. Singh said that in rainfed areas soil and
rainfed areas. The focus of this investment
water are critical - water without soil is no use
should not be only on increasing productivity
and soil without water, there can be no
but also on agro processing, dairying etc which
agriculture. In that sense, there is a dire need of
would create off – farm employment thereby
judicious management of both these critical
reducing the pressure on the land. Funds can
elements. He felt that the farmers in dryland
be allocated for community grain banks and
areas had very little idea of the technological
access to food can be enhanced through
developments in agriculture, which indicates
employment generation. There are many such
the need to strengthen the extension
examples and if this is done farming can be seen
mechanisms. He stressed on the ‘knowledge
as ‘productive, income generating and an
based agriculture’ and observed that we have
effective livelihood process.’ There is a need for
failed in effective knowledge transfer in many
a more comprehensive management of the
aspects like IPM, water use efficiency etc.
resources in rainfed areas. Policies and
Farmers’ awareness and knowledge is very
programs at the national and state level urgently
much important for rainfed areas and if the
need to focus on increasing the growth rate of
farmer is given knowledge, the vulnerability of
agriculture which is at present less than 2%.
rainfed areas can be addressed. He called upon
He called upon the workshop to strongly
the concerned to “... Go to the grass root and
advocate for social thinking and capital
empower the farmers as they are the people
build-up to work upon bettering rainfed areas
who use research.”
and make recommendations that addresses the
Dr. Singh also emphasized on the need for concerns related to the farmer, from plough to
confluence of national ongoing programs for plate.
investment in rainfed areas. There is enough
money in programs like Bharat Nirman, NREG ■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

40
 SESSION – IV
Parallel Sessions
Critical Support Systems for Upscaling Successful Experiences
on 6 major themes associated with Rainfed Farming
Theme - A: Pest Management through Non Pesticidal Methods

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Chairperson
Dr. V.L. Chopra, Member, Planning Commission
Co-chairperson
Shri H. Lanting, CEO, ETC
Rapporteur
Shri G. Chandrasekhar, CSA
41
 Pest Management through NPM -
A Continuing Journey
Dr. M.S. Chari
Former Director (CTRI), ICAR
D r Chari started his presentation by giving a
quotation from Dr. M. S. Swaminathan on the
present agrarian crisis: “If Farm Ecology and
Economics go wrong nothing else will go right in
agriculture. This is the principal message of the
current agrarian crisis.”
He stated that the crisis in agriculture is due to
ever increasing expenditure on agricultural
production; unfavourable agricultural Pricing
Policy; limitations of Watershed Development;
non-availability of inputs at right time (NPM/
IPM); poor seed replacement ratio and non
availability of timely credit. He gave statistics
of farmers’ suicides in Andhra Pradesh, which
was 221 in the year 1998 which increased to
2115 in 2004. According to him, the crisis in
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
agriculture can be felt in various aspects. One
major concern is that minor pests in various
crops are becoming major pests. In Punjab and
Gujarat there is resurgence of mealy bug and
white fly in Bt cotton. Spider mites have become
major pests because of excessive use of carbaryl
in Gujarat decades back. Apart from these stem
borer, stem weevil, spodoptera have become
major pests in Bt cotton. This has benefited the
pesticides companies and dealers. Bt cotton
42
came into picture with promised reduction in
pest incidence and pesticides costs. The
farmers are slowly coming back to Green
Revolution era by spraying 12-34 times on some
crops like Bt cotton. It has reached a state where
in about Rs.700 crores worth of pesticides were
used in Punjab alone. In coconut, Europhyd
mite has become a major problem – state
governments recommended root injection of
pesticide but it did not work. Aerial spraying
was recommended to control the same, which
was opposed. The pest has come from Srilanka
due to quarantine problem. Spodoptera pest,
which can be seen walking on roads, is
attacking crops in large numbers.
Dr. Chari stated that pesticide use in India is
still high, environmental load of pesticides is
maximum in Punjab, Haryana, Andhra
Pradesh and Tamilnadu. Indian pesticide
industry is the largest in Asia and 12th largest
in the world. The production of pesticides is
90,000 MT per year and it is valued at Rs. 4500
crores per annum. While America is using 16
kgs of pesticides per acre it is about 800 gm/
acre in the country. He gave statistics of
pesticides consumptions in few states of the
country. He also statistically showed that use
of pesticides is gradually coming down. This
might be due shift to low volume high value
pesticides. He gave pesticide usage in different
crops vis a vis their cropped area. Listing the
major pesticides used in the country he stated
that internationally banned pesticides like
Monocrotophos are yet to be banned in the
country.
He observed that brinjal crop is sprayed with
34 pesticide sprays during one crop season.
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) has
developed NPM technology for this crop with
support from Natural Resources Institute.
Similarly, another organization developed trap
technology for cabbage moth. Chillies exports
are going down and they are being turned down
by receiving countries because of high pesticidal
residues.
He gave the FAO definition for IPM: “… it
means a pest management system that, in the
context of the associated environment and the
population dynamics of the pest species, utilizes
all suitable techniques and methods in as
compatible manner as possible and maintains
the pest populations at levels below those
causing economically unacceptable damage or
loss”. He stated that IPM needs group action
and then listed various components of the
programme. Dr. Chari then went on to list the
constraints in IPM in a government programme:
lack of group action in the village; aggressive
marketing of pesticides; absence of
decentralized decision making process, non
favorable government policies, poor extension
service system and non-availability of inputs.
Dr. Chari gave the definition of Non Pesticidal
Management (NPM) as: “ …. a system that, in
the context of the associated environment &
population dynamics of the pest species, utilizes
all sustainable techniques in as compatible
manner as possible and maintains the pest
population at levels below those causing
economic injury level as per farmers
knowledge”. He further emphasized this by
saying that it is simply not the juxta-position or
super-imposition of two or more control
techniques but the integration of all suitable
management techniques in a harmonious
manner with natural regulating elements of the
ecosystem.
Dr. Chari emphasized that farmers need to be
educated regarding pests and predators. He
stated that NPM involves replacing external
chemical products with farmers knowledge,
skills, local resources. Instead of resorting to
control measures during damaging stage, pest
should be managed so that it does not reach to
damaging proportions. It involves increasing the
knowledge base of the farmers to identify the
stage in which pest can be easily controlled and
increasing the technical skills of the farmers to
use the locally available materials. For NPM to
be successful the community has to be
organized for group action on large scale which
multiplies the effectiveness of the pest
management practices. Listing the issues in
NPM, Dr. Chari stated the need for promoting
sustainability of crop production by
developing and adopting low cost systems of
NPM. As 75% of the farm holdings are small
and marginal, the resource-poor farmers would
need simple, economic and effective methods
of pest management suited to their farm
situations.
Dr. Chari recalled how NPM was started by
Centre for World solidarity (CWS) in 1989-93
with management of Red Hairy Catterpillar in
Castor. The loss due to this pest in castor crop
alone was Rs. 12 – 14 crores during that time.
The NPM approach was successful and was
implemented in about 4561 hectares and the
farmers gained substantially. Punukala village
is in the forefront of NPM movement from that
time itself. Starting with 8 members in 2001-02
the entire village became pesticide free in 2003-
04. Effective monitoring by facilitating
organizations, participation of women,
involvement of Panchayat and utilization of
local resources are behind this success. As a
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
result there is savings not only in cost of
cultivation but also in health related
expenditure. Migration has gone down. Since
the success, there is continuous flow of visitors
from various walks of life to learn from this
unique experiment.
Since then NPM has spread fast and now it is a
state wide movement with more than 1.5 lakh
acres with 90,000 farmers under NPM with
Mandal Mahila Samakyas and Indira Kranthi
43
 Patham providing the platform for the same.
Several NGOs are involved as facilitating/
anchor organizations at the district level with
CSA providing the state level coordination and
technical support. From castor it is now
undertaken in other crops like cotton, redgram,
groundnut, paddy, chillies, etc.
Dr. Chari stated that the savings to the farmers
as a result of adopting NPM practices ranges
from around Rs. 1000 for redgram and
groundnut and more than Rs. 10,000 for
chillies. Due to this and as a result of better yields
there are higher returns for farmers in all the
crops. He remarked that NPM is essentially a
Salient differences between NPM and IPM
NPM
● Adopted by Small and Marginal farmers
● Deep Summer ploughing
● Tolerant varieties
● Random planting of sorghum
● Crop Rotation
● Intercrop
● Trap crop
● NSKE 5% (locally prepared) by farmers/SHGs
● Neem oil 3%(Locally prepared)
● Chilli Garlic Extract (IK available with farmers)
● Cattle dung Urine (Indigenous Knowledge)
● Pheromone traps @5/ha
● Release of Trichogramma
● Bird perches @25/ha
● Yellow sticky plates @5/ha
● NPV 500 LE/ha
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
● Shaking method (IK)
● No use of Pesticides as pests never reach
damaging level
● No pest Resurgence reported
● Decision making by family (farmer and wife)
● Group Action at Village level (cropping system)
● NGO based knowledge empowerment/SERP
44
shift from input centric to knowledge centric
agriculture. Farmers manage the pests by
knowledge, management skills, labour and
community action. Natural processes and
natural products are used to the fullest
potential. Farmers understand the pest
behaviour and manage it before it reaches
damaging stage and proportion. The life cycle
of the insects is understood in detail and
effective pest surveillance and crop
management practices are followed.
Dr. Chari stated that Non Pesticidal
Management is an approach to crop protection
based on ecosystem management which
IPM
● Rich and Big Farmers with large land holdings
● Deep Summer ploughing
● GM varieties/hybrids
● Not followed
● Monocropping, mostly
● Intercrop
● Trap crop
● Neem commercial compounds
● Neem commercial compounds
● Not Accepted as no branded product is available
in the market
● Not recommended by Scientists
● Pheromone traps @5/ha
● Release of Trichogramma
● Bird perches @25/ha
● Yellow sticky plates @5/ha
● NPV 500 LE/ha
● Not recommended
● Loaded with Pesticides
● Pest Resurgence is very common
● Top down approach (ICAR, NCIPM, PPA and
State Govts)
● Individual farmers/crop based
● Government based extension service system at
State level/GOI
maintains natural equilibrium and reduces the needed through political will at State and
risk of crop damage by pests. He listed the key National level. Crop protection research and
issues and challenges of NPM. It was strongly extension schemes should be reformed so that
proposed that participatory NPM is the most they give more support to farmers initiatives on
effective option for large scale introduction in NPM. There should be increased coordination
watershed programmes. For this local NGOs and cooperation among governments and
adopting NPM needs to be supported and NGOs. NPM policies should be integrated into
encouraged. NPM should be incorporated in rainfed agriculture.
ongoing programme/ projects related to
Dr. Chari concluded by stating that it is time to
Agriculture, Rural Development, Community
go for organic. He quoted G. Arun Kumar (as
Development and Poverty Alleviation. National
reported in Times of India, September 19,2007):
NPM programmes should be further developed
“I am Wondering why you get frequent stom-
so that participatory NPM training is available
ach upsets despite following the most nutritious
to larger number of farmers. Involvement of
diet possible? Your health is in your hands
women should be improved by incorporating
and pesticides free food is the ‘prescription’ to
explicit gender strategies at all stages of
keep you hale and hearty.” ■
development. Better policy environment is
Analysis of Existing Policies and Programmes for
Pest Management in Agriculture – Limitations and
Opportunities
Shri D.V. Raidu
IAS (Retd), State Project Adviser (NPM), SERP
S hri Raidu stated that Andhra Pradesh has
largest network of women SHGs. Women, apart
from their myriad activities, were into
marketing operations and they requested for
intervention in cultivation of redgram to reduce
cost of cultivation. After successful piloting and
experimentation, SERP decided to upscale the
pilots .

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Shri Raidu made an analysis of various existing
schemes in GoI on pest management starting
with Technology Mission on Cotton. The
components of this scheme are FFS (with
different sub-components such as Agro-Eco
System Analysis by regular field visits, growing
healthy crop, conserving natural enemies due
to which farmer becomes expert in decision
making); season long training of facilitators;
insecticide resistance management; seed
treatment with pesticides including Tri-
choderma; surveillance and monitoring of
diseases and pests; distribution of pheromone
traps/ light traps, bio-agents/ bio-pesticides
and human resource development. He observed
that some of these schemes provide pesticides
45
 on subsidy, which is contrary to the
philosophy.
Shri Raidu then listed the components of
controlling red hairy caterpillar: deep summer
ploughing, community bonfires within 48 hours
of first showers, light traps, mechanical
removal and destruction of eggs, growing trap
crops, distribution of milkweed (Calotropis)/
castor twigs, digging trenches around field and
dusting chemicals, spraying insecticides, poison
baiting with rice bran + jaggery + quinalphos.
He commented that several of these
components are in accordance with NPM, but
digging trenches around field and dusting
chemicals, pesticides and poison baits are not
necessary. He opined that these need to be
replaced.
Components of Integrated Scheme of Pulses,
Oilseeds, Maize (ISOPOM) provides for (apart
from the other regular components) 50%
subsidy on pesticides, involvement of private
sector including NGOs, farmers’ organisations,
cooperative bodies, public sector agencies in
seed production, supply of inputs, extension
support, block and frontline demonstrations. He
stated that the states can take up innovative
measures and additional components to the
extent of 10% of the existent allocation.
Analysing the various schemes, Shri Raidu
commented that the technical components are
not focusing on farmers’ livelihoods. He argued
that this should involve women and small and
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
marginal farmers. He recommended that these
technical components should be agriculture
labour oriented in the rainfed areas. He
questioned whether the factors tried are in
congruence with natural processes and
natural cycles. Dwelling on weeds, he said that
there is a need for a paradigm shift in our
concept and approach. Weeds should be seen
as uncultivated food/ medicine/ fodder/
46
mulch/ biomass. Stating that the usage of
pesticides runs contrary to conservation of
natural enemies of crop pests and distorts
agro-ecosystem, he recommended its
discontinuation in the various schemes.
Dealing the financial and institutional
components of these schemes, he said that these
are presently individual based and it can be
through CBOs. Can the input subsidy go for
Capacity Building either as revolving fund or
as grant, he queried. Instead of giving subsidy
on pesticides he argued that the money should
go to develop neem plantations. Support is also
needed for purchasing bullocks, neem
pulveriser, spraying equipment, mini dal mills,
implements etc, to be made available to the
community on custom hire basis. He also
argued that the money should be invested in
community for sharing/ transfer of knowledge,
particularly below the mandal level. He
wondered what would happen once the
subsidy or the programme is withdrawn (by the
Government).
Shri Raidu elaborated on the alternate
experiences that have a different story to tell.
Experiences of controlling red hairy caterpillar
in 1990s showed that with technical
backstopping by KVKs, Department of
Agriculture and social mobilization by NGOs;
in 3 – 4 years of sustained efforts, the pest was
done away with in about 40 villages by
involving the community. Further, there was
no reduction in yield due to this non-chemical
approach. It was proactive; educating on the
life cycle of the pest, interrupting at pupae,
adult, egg and early instar stages.
Another experience was of Punukula village in
Khammam district, which was facing fatigue
of pesticides. Pesticide cost was going up and
net farm incomes were coming down. Health
hazards to farm women and labour were
common. At least two pesticide poisoning cases
were reported every week. Community with the
facilitation of an NGO banned the usage of
pesticides and their entry into the village.
Capacity building of the farmers in particular
and community in general was undertaken on
pest life cycles and intervention in early stages.
NGO, SHGs and sarpanch were the key
players in adopting Non-Pesticidal
Management (NPM). Traditional knowledge
was used, including botanicals. As a result of
these interventions, ecology is getting restored
and the count of beneficial insects is going up.
Also cost of cultivation and health expenditure
are reduced. With increased incomes farmers
brought back their mortgaged land. Now small
farmers are taking land on lease from big
farmers.
There are several challenges in upscaling these
experiences into the mainstream programme.
Knowledge transfer should take place (on pest
and disease life cycles and on beneficial
organisms) and CBOs should be involved.
Technical backstopping should be done at
farmer level. For successful implementation it
needs bias towards small and marginal
farmers and farm women. The other challenges
are: lack of employment opportunities for
agriculture labour leading to migration;
neutralising influence of market forces; erosion
of traditional technical know-how; depletion of
natural resource base and bio-diversity;
prevalence of high energy intensive agriculture
models; etc.
Shri Raidu also listed the opportunities for
upscaling the NPM approach. He said that
whereas the Department of Agriculture has
technical manpower above mandal level, SERP
has strength in below mandal to farm gate level.
There is a strong CBO movement nurtured by
SERP over past 15 years with the Poorest of the
Poor, Poor, small and marginal farmers. The
Sustainable Agriculture programme has
practicing farmer as village facilitator, one
cluster facilitator for a group of 5 villages,
community resource person from SHG. CBOs
own the programme and manage them and
NPM sub committees are formed. Sasya Mitra
groups conduct periodical review.
Community seed banks need to be established
where the community decides upon the variety
to be multiplied, and after multiplication
distributes the seed. He stated that presently
they are being implemented in 70 villages and
that will be upscaled in all the 18 districts in
phases. This is being integrated with NREGS.
Presently marketing is done without any
premium price and integrated in to food
security program of CBOs. The objective is to
taking forward NPM in rainfed areas to Organic
farming with group certification and without
yield reduction. He also shared with the
participants that an MoU was signed with GOI
for Rs. 182 crores for 5 years for implementing
organic farming in rainfed areas in AP.
Shri Raidu suggested that there could be
convergence with Department of Agriculture,
where Mandal Agriculture Officers would work
as technical facilitators on NPM/ Ecological
farming. Research validation of certain
traditional/ popular treatments (panchagavya,
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
amrutpani, brahmastram, gobanam, etc.) is
required. The topics on ecological farming
should be made part of course curriculum in
schools. Demonstration centres at KVKs should
be developed as model ecological farms and
seed development centres.
■
47
 Open Discussion
S tarting the discussion Chairperson Dr. V L
Chopra shared his experiences. He recalled the
emergence of IPM with the objective of keeping
the pesticide use at a minimal level. However,
in actual practice it couldn’t be so due to
various reasons and the objectives were not
achieved. In this background NPM came into
picture. He stated that NPM is not just a matter
of faith but is applicable on farm; it is
sustainable and up-scalable. But this needs
incisive knowledge, cooperative action of
farmers and the community, readjustment of
the policy of the government; a remunerative
price for such produce. In this context he posed
certain queries: what are the messages that we
give to research community for their package
of practices; how they move from individual to
group action. He also emphasized on asserting
political influence to bring in knowledge
society.
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Shri Narasimha Reddy wanted to know the
continuation of the NPM practices by the
farmers. He also wanted to know the number
of crops in which NPM approach is adopted
and whether the approach towards small and
marginal farmers was successful. Dr. Amita
Shah queried whether there is a case for
making output price support. Shri M.V.
Ramchandrudu wanted the emphasis to be on
48
how to sell the process in place of physical
inputs.
Shri Routray was curious about the impact on
yield in transition phase. To this Dr. Chari
responded that initially there was scare in the
farmers that the yields would be low. However,
there was gradual change in this fear and it was
established that there is no reduction in yields.
He stated that not a single farmer complained
about yield loss in the last 20 years.
Responding to the queries, Shri Raidu stated
that KVK, Kurnool and independent scientists
are doing adaptation rate analysis. The
emphasis during the first year is on
understanding life cycles and botanicals for pest
management. The next year other practices
were introduced. The question is whether we
should flash the various options available to the
farmer or give a prescriptive recommendation.
The adaptation rate depends on this factor. He
further stated that the NPM approach is being
adopted in 11-12 crops. Due to this, healthy
food and cotton is being produced. He disclosed
that farmer-wise database is available, of which
70-80% are small and marginal farmers. Chilly
crop is a major pesticide consumer wherein
NPM is successful. He observed that while
touring in rural areas interactions with the
community is not needed as tell tale signs of
NPM such as pheromone traps, sticker plates,
border crops are visible everywhere.
Dr. Chopra opined that more is said on
philosophical basis rather than empirical basis,
and requested that this should be resolved.
Central to NPM/ IPM is a requirement of
farmers’ organization which is totally
community based. Are we in a position to
ensure that we will be able to organize the
community, at cluster level of villages, where
the entire community will take one direction,
he queried. Raidu informed about the SHG
structure, which is implementing various
programmes since 3 to 5 years. He also said that
whole village concept will start in one year and
upscaling is taking place from 60 to 350 acres
and to whole village.
Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu said that it is not just
extension but also technical support that the various practices and not prohibit any; so
farmers need. Farmer’s organization is not a uniform thought is difficult, he opined.
prerequisite, he opined and said that if it is there
Making the concluding remarks Dr. Chopra
it would be good. He felt that farmers organize
commented that by organizing the community
on their needs and not on our rationale; if they
one can kill hundred birds with one stone.
see benefit they will get organized. He suggested
Agreeing that there is a case for public support;
that the Government should put in money for
he said that is why production subsidies are
organizing the farmers. He suggested for
given but this creates distortions. He felt that if
looking at innovative ways of custom hiring,
the subsidies go on community basis then it
and organizing biomass production centres.
would be better and that this would
Co-chairperson Mr. Lanting said that insects revolutionise agriculture. He also shared about
that are coming from sprayed fields to the district level planning process wherein
non-sprayed fields is very less, with one excep- agricultural subsidies would be routed from
tion in Guntur. IKP says it can only promote existing schemes. ■

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

49
 SESSION – IV
Parallel Session
Theme - B: Seeds in the Hands of the Community
Chairperson
Shri S.L.Bhat, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India
Co-chairperson
Dr.N.D.Jambhale, ADG (Seeds), ICAR
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Rapporteur
Shri D.K. Routray, AGM, NABARD
Making the opening remarks, Chairperson Dr. S L Bhat stated that seed is a very important issue.
The concern about seed availability has got national focus, which is reflected in the discussions
over the meetings of National Development Council and the Planning Commission.
50
 Analysis of Existing Policies and Programmes
under Seed sector – Limitations and Opportunities
Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu
Executive Director, CSA
D r. G.V.Ramanjaneyulu presented the
analysis under the title ‘Seed – Out of Control:
Dynamics of Technology and Policies’. He
explained about the present situation in which
the farmers have to fight to get the seed. They
stand in long queues to get seeds for their fields.
The institutional set up is not able to provide
seeds in adequate quantities to the farmers. Thus
the focus shifted to the private sector as the
major supplier of seeds. Most policies and
legislations starting from the late 1980s shows
a clear favoring of private sector entry and
expansion – several rights and incentives
bestowed on private sector, including exclusive
marketing rights. Research & Development is
focusing on hybrids and transgenic and the
research on varieties has decreased in crops like
cotton and castor. Transgenic are more
proprietary controlled, and the interest of the
private seed industry is focused on them. More
and more laws are in the Intellectual Property
Rights framework.
Dr. Ramanjaneyulu said that yield is seen as
productivity; and he opined that it can be seen
in many ways. The paradox is that no one is
ready to look at traditional varieties. The present
thrust of the government led extension is on seed
replacement ratio. However, what is needed is
the retention of good quality seed by the
farmers in the villages. This should have been
the campaign. He shared that only 18% of the
seed requirement is supplied by the seed
industry and public sector. Dr. Ramanjaneyulu
suggested that we should look at how the
remaining seed need is being met. Even for
private sector the farmers produce the seeds,
while they do only packaging and selling. He
opined that this can be done by any other agency
at more favorable terms to the farmers.
Unfortunately there is no seed control
mechanism in Andhra Pradesh and farmers are
being advised to go to consumer courts, where
several cases are pending. He remarked that
Consumer Protection Act is inadequate and
farmer-unfriendly. MoU system is without any
legal teeth; even where punishments were
awarded, they were not executed.
Seed industry in Andhra Pradesh is of Rs. 440
crores and subsidy is to the tune of Rs. 180 crores,
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
most of it is for groundnut. This is distorting
the farmer seed retention practice; as they need
to pay less for the subsidized seed. The share of
public sector in seed production in the state is
only to an extent of 17-20% and its market
share is 21.5%. The seed production is
concentrated among 10,000 dealers. There are
more than 440 seed producing companies/ firms
operating in the state. There are about 300
51
 registered processing plants. There are more
than one lakh seed producing farmers. The seed
produced in the state is marketed in other states.
60% to 95% of the seed requirement for crops
like cotton, sorghum, pearl millet, sunflower,
hybrid rice, etc. in the country is met from
Andhra Pradesh. The state is presently
adopting seed village programme on a
commercial basis. The seed produced in the
programme is purchased and sold at another
place. The margin in seed production is high,
where neither the seed producers nor the
consumers are winners. He gave an example of
cotton hybrid seed where farmer gets 220 per
kg, whereas packed seed is sold at 800 rupees
for 500 gm. He stated that the problem of
spurious seed is enormous and that there is no
automatic monitoring. He also observed that
public sector is weakened, being turned into
procurement and distribution agency rather
than seed production agency. Private sector is
interested in low volume and high value seed
and not vice versa. While the public sector is
striving for timely supply of quality seeds
(paddy, groundnut etc.) on the other hand the
private sector is engaged in artificial shortfall
and black-marketing. There is no clear seed
production plan. He emphasized the need for
focusing on alternative mechanisms.
Ensuring good quality seeds for timely sowing
of rainfed farmer is the issue. Stating that there
is lack of political will in enforcing regulations,
Dr.Ramanjaneyulu observed that the seed
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
prices are constantly rising. There is large and
aggressive marketing. Presenting the cotton
scenario he said that now there is no public
sector seed available and is completely
52
dominated by private sector. Mono-crop to
mono variety to mono genes has lead to
monopoly of markets; which can be an
ecological disaster. Using MRTP, Andhra
Pradesh government has reduced the cotton
price, however the seed producers got cotton
removed from the essential commodities list.
Thus the price regulation is not applicable to it
now. He raised the issue of technology vs. policy
and the question of farmers’ rights. He observed
that the laws are protecting the interest of the
industry and not the farmers. There is no
technology focus on how to revive the seeds.
The new Seed Bill is still pending.
Stressing the need for farmer-centric seed
systems, he observed that quality, quantity,
price, timely availability, access and
accountability seem to be issues in all the places.
Dwelling on the alternatives he took the
examples of Mulkanoor Seed Producers
Cooperative; DDS’s Community Gene Fund
project; CSA’s Seed Village Network
programme; Government’s Seed Village
Programme; Community Seed Banks of the
Rural Development Department; SERP
Community Seed Banks.
Adding to the presentation, Shri Lanting
observed that in cotton there is drive towards
long staple cotton varieties and that there are
no varieties for this even with CICR, Nagpur.
Market is driving the seed development process
he lamented, and as a result farmers are finally
losing control. Dr. Ramanjaneyulu reminded
that American cotton varieties were introduced
to suit the spinning mills and 190 varieties were
withdrawn. ■
Community Managed Seed Bank in Rainfed Areas
– Need for New Mechanisms and Infrastructure
Support
Dr. K. Tirupataiah
Special Commissioner,
Dept. of Rural Development, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
D r. Tirupataiah started his presentation by
saying that seed is the origin of the life and
quoted ‘Yadha Beejam Tatha Phalam’ (You reap
as you sow). He said that seed is the most
important determinant of agricultural
production potential in which the efficacy of
other agricultural inputs are dependent. The
National Seed Policy-2002 has arisen out of this
concern. He stressed that timely supply of seed
is essential for sustained increase in agriculture
production.
The presentation focused on three aspects:
i) seed replacement vs. retention; ii) efficient
systems for timely supply of seeds and iii) need
for the community seed banks. With most
favorable conditions for seed production,
Andhra Pradesh has become the capital of seed
production in India. He gave the statistics of
the percentage of seed produced in the state for
crops like cotton, oil seeds, bajra, jowar, etc.
Giving the data from the year 1953-54, he said
that the quantity of certified seed produced in
the state is doubling every decade since 1980s.
But the present system is centralised and
dominated by private agencies. The role of the
public sector seed agencies has been
marginalized and as a result quality and
accountability are at stake. There is inadequate
supply of seed when compared to the demand
aggravated by inordinate delays.
Systems were built around green revolution
with HYV as nucleus. But the rainfed areas did
not have the same nucleus to build around.
There is huge diversity in terms of crops and
varieties cultivated and there is no fall back in
cases of non-germination of the seed. The
systems in irrigated areas and centralized
systems are easy to operate with big farmers, as
they would show the results. However, in
dryland areas the issues are different. Seed
suppliers are not interested in high volume and
low value and self pollinated crops which is the
case with most of the rainfed crops. Seed
replacement ratio for pulses and oil seeds is very
low (5-10%).
He referred about the alternative experiences
in community based seed management of
Mulkanoor Cooperative Society, Karimnagar;
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Seed Village Network of NGOs led by Centre
for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Hyderabad
and Community Gene Fund of Deccan
Development Society, Zaheerabad.
He then shared the experience of APRLP
(supported by DFID) with women groups in
establishing community seed banks. For this
purpose the provision for productivity
enhancement investment in the programme
was used. Village Organisations (federation of
53
 women SHGs) operated as producers, & variety wise seed requirement of watershed
financiers, managers and users, which is a shift village. DWMA facilitated procurement of
from vertically organized structure to breeder/ foundation seed from Agricultural
horizontal. The focus was on cost reduction and Research Stations.
timely availability of seed. The experience that
Farmers interested in seed multiplication were
started with 500 seed banks in watersheds is
identified and an agreement was made to
now upscaled to 3200 villages by Department
supply graded seed after harvest for further
of Agriculture. The budget provision of
multiplication. Seed is thus produced and
watershed is broken into productivity
shared within the village. Trainings were given
enhancement and livelihoods, which is made
to seed growing farmers for 3 days during the
available as grant for establishing the seed
crop period (sowing, flowering and harvesting
banks. Watershed villages served as nucleus
stages). Graded seed from farmers was procured
villages for seed production. Satellite villages
and stored by VO for distribution to farmers
were established for multiplication and scaling
during next season. VO was trained in grading
up. Technical support including training and
and proper storing of the seed.
visits were provided by ICRISAT consortium
and DWMA staff. The consortium provides The initiative has provided “seed independence”
hand holding through various stages and in and had a tremendous economic impact on the
every watershed there is an agriculture small and marginal farmers. It provided a
paraworker. There is no subsidy in the sustainable alternative seed system as well as
programme and the money is used as revolving livelihoods opportunities. This experience has
fund. Infrastructure and storage facilities are given the future direction to seed systems and
provided as part of the programme. threw up the needs for upscaling. He said that
thrust should be given to “third –tier” of seed
Dr. Tirupataiah said that the impacts of the
production system. Research should provide
programme are already visible: seed costs have
support to the seed village programme. The seed
gone down, it is available in time and there is
produced at village level is not for commercial
faith in the seed. But there are certain issues
purpose but for farmer to farmer exchange.
that need to be addressed. The two way
Thus there is a need to exempt it from licensing
transportation costs of the seed can be reduced.
and registration requirements. He stated that
He opined that if capital, infrastructure,
there should be recognition for decentralized
technological support and hand holding issues
seed production system.
are addressed the programme can be easily
upscaled. Dr. Tirupataiah recommended that drought
and other related funds should be channeled
Dr. Tirupataiah said that in this pilot with more
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

as seed subsidy in the form of revolving fund to

than 7000 farmers about 5000 quintals of seed
VO/CBOs to run the seed bank. He also
was produced, which would cover an area of
recommended that infrastructure support for
20,000 acres. He then captured the entire
storage facilities should be provided through
experience in the following process steps:
PM’s special package, etc. Concluding his
Village Organization (VO) was the presentation he said that the focus during the
implementing agency for watersheds and one last 3 years was on seeds for dryland farms and
agricultural para- worker was positioned in diverse seeds.
each watershed, who provides day to day field ■
support. They assist VO in assessing crop wise
54
 Open Discussion
B efore opening the session for debate
Chairperson Dr. Bhat made his comments. He
commended the speakers for the two elaborate
and exciting presentations on seed scenario.
However, he opined that the debate on seed is
skewed as with other issues. Presently the seed
situation is such that the farm saved seed
accounts for 80% of the need. Stating that if the
quality of seed is to be improved then the farm
saved seed has to be improved and he said that
the government is focusing on it. The seed
village programme has 3 components: seed,
training, storage facility. There is no
compulsion of procurement. He opined that
seed and agriculture is so complex and that one
dimensional view is not possible. Giving the
example of cotton, he said that there are now
more than 25 companies. He stated that the
focus of government is not on hybrids and
transgenic.
Referring to the new seed law he said that it
has consumer forum to redress issues. The seed
bill has been opposed both by the farmers’
organizations and private seed industry and
India is not member of UPOV because of the
bill. He stated firmly that no right of the farmer
has been infringed upon. The government would
be accountable for seed failure. The bill will go
to parliament shortly and there will be
stringent action on spurious seed.
Commenting on removal of cotton from the
Essential Commodities Act, he said that it was
done on the requisition from textile ministry;
only cotton seed was on the list; there is a
requisition for renotification, which would be
done shortly.
Dr. Bhat said that there is no legal provision for
Truthfully Labeled (T/L) seed. The quality
claimed has to correspond with the notified
standards. He said that licensing and
registration are required for seed produced
under seed village programme. In France there
are laws that would punish use of uncertified
seeds. There is no doubt that seed laws, patents
are heavily influenced by profit motive in other
countries but this will not work in our country.
He shared with the group that the Seed Bank
scheme has been extended to all the states.
Co-chairperson Dr. Jambhale opined that in
rainfed crops voluminous seed is required,
which should be undertaken with NGOs. He
observed that seed production chain is being
followed and the private sector is being
encouraged to ensure efficiency and timely
supply of seeds. In seed replacement the focus
should be on desirable varieties and genetic
purity has to be maintained. He stated that
business can continue only when there is
credibility and demand and felt that the Seed
Bill will take care of the lacunae in regulation.
He favoured Public – Private partnership in the
seed sector. However, rainfed systems need
community seed banks with horizontal linkage
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
55
 from village to village and farmer to farmer
exchange. He felt that public sector should
focus on ‘large volume and low value seed.’ He
said that that the public sector has the capacity
to supply cotton varieties in long staple.
Dr. Bhat stated that while ICAR is
emphasizing on bio-diversity, in Punjab,
Haryana there are no more traditional
varieties; whereas Nagaland and Jharkhand
which have diverse seeds are not being
compensated for conservation.
Dr. Katyal opined that conservation can take
place ex-situ also. The small and marginal
farmers do not have large surpluses for market;
we should see how we can upgrade and
produce their varieties. Maldandi variety of
sorghum has large areas in kharif and rabi
seasons. We should think of producing the seed
in the village for rainfed areas; which should
be done with some farmers who have
irrigation and storage facilities and they should
be provided with subsidy. Stating that Public
sector research has not addressed the problem
of farmers, he said that the non-formal seed
production should be supported. He also said
that cotton varieties with long staple are
available in Haryana, but out of 4.3 lakh acres
3.8 lakh acres are under Bt. He opined that Bt
gene may be introduced into varieties, where
the public sector has failed.
Stating that seed is operated with oligopolic
structure, Dr. Amita Shah posed what kind of
reformulation and regulations are required? She
was of opinion that there is need for new
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
enterprises for rural youth for bio-products that
are needed for sustainable agriculture. She
wanted the group to probe on the support
needed for private but not large enterprise, not
only for seed but for new organic, bio-
generated systems and community managed
seed systems.
Dr. Bhat said that there are several schemes to
promote agri-entrepreneurships; however, the
56
farmers’ interest is supreme. National Food
Security Mission alone can provide a subsidy of
Rs. 25 lakhs towards this objective. Stating that
the seed producers would always be in small
numbers he lamented that the green revolution
was opposed as a programme of big farmers.
Dr. Ramanjaneyulu felt that problems related
to technology are not readily accepted by
either the research establishment or policy
makers. He strongly recommended that we
should expand the scope of support system to
the farmer producing seed which is used by the
community, as it is not a business in the real
sense. Can the subsidy be extended to the
community produced seed, he posed. He
strongly proposed for a better regulation of the
existing seed industry.
Dr. K Tirupataiah wanted the recurring seed
subsidy to be shifted on to the farmer, as
revolving fund. He also shared that APSSDC is
willing to get associated with the community
based seed producers. Dr. Bhat said that issues
in Andhra Pradesh regarding community
based seed production would be discussed with
Government of AP. He said that there should
be large scale promotion of agri-
entrepreneurship. He also felt that we need new
seed law with principle of compensation.
Dr. Katyal said that seed replacement improves
the productivity and he shared the statistics of
various crops (in cereals in irrigated areas seed
replacement is 10%; as a result the productivity
is 2 tonnes; in oilseeds it is only 5% and
productivity is 1 tonne and in pulses these are
2-3% and 550 kgs). The session concluded with
the closing remarks from Co-chairperson,
wherein he emphasized upon the quality seed
production and the need for revolving fund for
the purpose. He said that the new varieties
produced by the ICAR institutions would be
multiplied through KVK farms and linkages
provided to the farmers.
■
 SESSION – IV
Parallel Session
Theme - C: Enhancement of Organic Matter in Soils
Chairperson
Dr. J.C. Katyal, Vice Chancellor, CCS HAU

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Co-chairperson
Dr. Y.S. Ramakrishna, Director, CRIDA
Rapporteur
Dr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Scientist, CAZRI
57
 Improving Soil Productivity through Enhancement
of Organic Matter in Soils
Dr. J. Venkateswarlu
Ex-Director, CAZRI
D r. J Venkateswarlu’s research based
presentation covered aspects like lessons from
chemical agriculture, importance of Soil
Organic Matter (SOM), need for a level playing
field, means to enhance biomass production,
economics of non-chemical agriculture etc.
Chemical agriculture is mostly reductionistic in
its approach. It resulted in all-round
deceleration in productivity; of which most
affected were cereals. It led to technology
fatigue in varietal choice, lack of efficient
alternatives to wetland rice and also caused
ecological damage. Ground water exploitation
increased to 175% and 109% respectively in
Punjab and Haryana and only submersible
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
pumps were able to work. Soil organic matter
declined and it also led to S, Zn, Fe deficiencies
in those areas. Chemical agriculture is on top
of the agenda even in Rainfed Areas, which is
reflected in fertilizer micro-dosing, use of
hybrids etc. Unfortunately the
recommendations of the National Farmer’s
Commission and XIth Five Year Plan proposals
as they were also reflecting this trend.
58
The ecological damage due to external nutrient
use is obvious. The estimated annual uptake of
nutrients by crops is 28 Mts and most of these
nutrients are (19.8 Mts) mined from natural
resources. About 9.0 Mts of applied nutrients
are lost to biosphere and pollute it. Among these
N2O goes into atmosphere and NO3 – N into
soil and groundwater. Estimates on annual
losses of nutrients in India are to the extent of $
1.3 billion (with urea alone for 2003-04). At the
other end these external inputs are energy –
intensive. In this context, the importance of
Soil Organic Matter is clear.
The soil productivity is inclusive of chemical and
biological processes as well as physical soil
properties. It is mainly organic matter that can
improve the soil productivity. The philosophy
is to feed the soil rather than the crop to
maintain soil health. It holds more water and
results in less erosion, also improves soil
aggregate stability. It provides a sustainable
supply of nutrients and meets energy needs of
all the heterotrophic soil biota. It also leads to
efficient use of water resource, reduces
unproductive components of water balance
(runoff, soil evaporation and drainage) and
nutrient loss. It increases soil stability, resilience
and decreases pollution. While the organic
agriculture is one of the means to improve SOM,
the exploitative agriculture leads to loss of SOM.
There is a need for external application of
organics to soil to maintain soil health. This need
arises of turnover of organics particularly in
rainfed areas. As these areas are mostly
tropical and subtropical, in situ application of
smaller amounts of organics (say 2 t/ha)
annually would be ideal. Further the soil health
is a prerequisite for efficiency in pest
management. He suggested increasing cropping
intensity (with legume as a component) and
growing legume fodder-cum-manure in
sequence. Khejri agroforestry in Western
Rajasthan, Alder agroforestry in North East
States fix nitrogen and improves the yields.
Loppings of trees like Gliricidia and Subabool can
also be better source of nutrients for the soil.
There is a strong need for a level playing field
to address the needs of rainfed areas. Presently
chemical inputs are subsidized by the
government, urea nitrogen gets subsidy
@ Rs. 8/ kg of N. The same must be extended to
organic nitrogen. In this context, NREGS can
be extended to provide support to farmers who
prepare organic manures (e.g. compost,
vermicompost, green leaf manure, green
manure etc) and practice NPM. There are means
to enhance biomass production. Wherever
farmers accept MPTs, they need to be
encouraged and they should be introduced in
CPR lands.
Comparative economics of crop production
under Organic Farming System (OFS) and
Inorganic Farming System (IFS) showed that
production cost was gradually declining in OFS.
Further it is not easy to assign economic values
for soil health, reduced pollution, improved
resilience and reduced Green House Gas
emissions etc. The organic farming also enables
to increase the employment generation. If XIth
Five Year Plan target of developing 5 M ha of
land is taken into consideration, it will create
additional labour employment of 365 Million
person days and there will be average saving
through organic farming to the tune of
Rs. 3000/ ha.
Organic Agriculture need to have ‘Targeted
schemes’ to reduce the basic gap in our
planning and developmental approach. The ar-
eas could be Rainfed, Tribal and Mountaineous.
About 50,000 Special Agricultural Zones for or-
ganic enterprise in about 100 ha units may be
identified with preponderance of SMF and the
poor in the target areas.
Basing upon the references of different
scientists, the future course of action may be as
follows: SOM needs to be improved;
internalized production systems need to be con-
sidered. Ensuring community managed devel-
opment and using CBOs as platforms for
upscaling internalized production systems is the
need of the hour. Dr. Venkateswarlu concluded
by saying that “…development is the best
contraceptive for the population bomb paranoia
and development implies looking after the needs
of the poor”.
■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
59
 Enhancing Soil-Organic Matter in SAT- Scientific
Evidence & Policy Support Needed for Scale-Up
Dr. O P Rupela
Principal Scientist (Microbiology), ICRISAT
A t the outset, Dr. Rupela stated that as a
scientist he was not wedded to any ideology
and the views in this presentation were based
on about ten years experience of growing crops
without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers (i.e.
with low-cost and biological approaches).
Interactions with practitioners of organic
farming (OF) have given them the necessary
field orientation and large number of
publications referred suggests that these views
have roots in sound scientific principles.
He reminded that about 74 percent farmers in
India were small and marginal who owned <1.4
to 2.4 ha as per the 1991 Census of India. He
opined that there was a possibility to empower
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
the small and marginal farmers through an
agriculture that uses low-cost processes of crop
husbandry and locally available resources that
enhance soil organic matter (SOM).
He said that there is no doubt that SOM is an
indicator of soil life, soil health and even its
production capacity. And plant biomass is the
‘input needed’ for enhancing SOM. Thus
building SOM is synonymous to production. He
60
informed that any dry piece of grass or plant
leaf is made of more than 30 different elements,
including major nutrients like N, P, K, micro-
nutrients like Fe, Zn, B, Mo etc. and other
nutrients needed in traces. At a given time, most
of these nutrients are present in soil, but are in
bound or un-available form. Microorganisms
are the agents that interface the available and
non-available forms and are needed in
abundance and diversity when fertilizers are
not used.
Further elaborating, he said that, besides being
source of SOM, the value of plant biomass has
many dimensions. It provides food for
microorganisms. Together with agriculturally
beneficial microorganisms and soil moisture, it
can meet much or all nutrient need of crops. As
surface mulch, it prevents water loss from soil,
conditions soil surface temperature, protects soil
from erosion and improves harvesting of rain
water. Any crop production protocol in-
compatible with harnessing these benefits of
plant biomass needs to be harmonized.
He said that published records indicate that
farmers do not accept practices such as ‘Green
Manuring’ or recycling plant biomass that help
enhance SOM. Therefore, the need is to link
these practices to crop production to provide
some apparent benefits for farmers such as
reduced input-costs and value addition to their
products. This has been successfully done by
practitioners of Organic Farming (OF). In that
sense he termed Organic Farming as
‘Biomass-based Farming’. And suggested that
there is a need to change crop husbandry
system so that SOM is built up and crop
productivity is enhanced.
He further described some facts about plant
biomass. Microbial degradation of plant
biomass is faster in tropics than in temperate
climates. Value of plant biomass as surface
mulch is more important than its incorporation.
Large quantities of biomass can be generated
from the field where the crops are grown and
trees are an important source of biomass (i.e.
nutrients). So the need is to integrate selected
fruit trees in crop production system such that
these can be lopped for nutrients and still
produce fruits, even if with low yield.
Based upon scientific field experiments carried
out, Dr. Rupela outlined strategies for in-situ
production of biomass in the form of –growing
Gliricidia on field bunds, sowing extra to thin
(Pigeonpea and Cowpea intercrop), selecting
high biomass crops etc. He stated that the
weeds are also a source of biomass and
potentially rich in micro nutrients (an
important researchable topic). Unfortunately,
farmer in several states, particularly in Punjab
and Haryana, burn crop residues and the
efforts to get farmers interested in composting
of rice-straw failed. It is possible to use plant
biomass as surface mulch, obviating the need
of composting. In this regard, he suggested to
impose ban on burning biomass and
strategfically and slowly abolish subsidy on
fertilizers. Simultaneously, a changed paradigm
for Research and Development (e.g. a system
to sow crops in the presence of biomass) is also
needed.
According to Dr. Rupela, there is value
addition to plant biomass through surface
mulch. But there are issues with it, such as non-
compatibility with tillage. Widely believed
association of undecomposed plant biomass in
soil with soil-borne diseases, harboring of
insect-pests and damage due to termites are
indeed minor issues and are soluble as per his
over 10-years experience of dealing with these
with biological options. He suggested some
actions to address these concerns and felt that
important changes in educational system,
particularly on pest management are needed.
Farmers need to be educated on the value of
plant biomass as source of crop nutrients.
Dr. Rupela said that there were several indirect
evidences suggesting that per unit area yield in
biomass-based agriculture are comparable to
conventional agriculture. There are also limited
direct evidences to show that high yield and
sustainable features were attainable with low
cost & biological potions. Rodale Research
Institute, USA and FiBL Switzerland have about
25 years of research data that substantiate this
feature. Cuba’s crop yields did sustain the lack
of fertilizers and pesticides despite US-embargo.
The study conducted by Willer and Yussefi 2007
pointed out that there are large number of
farmers globally practicing OF on about 31
million hectares. In India also there is an
estimate that this practice is used in 2 million
hectares (includes forest area, and about 0.5 ha
of annual crops). He also cited the Organic
Source Book, 2005, authored by Claude
Alvares, Other India Press, Mapusa, Goa, which
has addresses of over 400 organic farmers who
claim to be harvesting yields comparable to their
neighbor conventional farmers. Dr.Rupela said
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
that these farmers are a great resource for
scientists to articulate science to their
knowledge and farming practices. He suggested
that Governments should not invest resources
in promoting ex-situ vermi composting. Instead
efforts should be there to teach farmers how to
enhance earthworms in fields where crops
grow, by ensuring food and shelter (biomass as
surface mulch) for the worms.
61
 Dr. Rupela also referred about some farmers
who are providing critical learnings. He talked
about Darshan Singh Tabeeba of Maachiwada
in Punjab who won ICAR award for being an
innovative user of locally available biomass
resource – a master recycler of crop residues and
integration of plant and animal components.
He referred Subhash Sharma of Yavatmaal
(Vidarbha region of Maharashtra), an awardee
farmer by Maharashtra State who is now
growing crops by recycling plant biomass avail-
able on his farm and integrating annual crops
and perennial trees, besides harvesting rain
water. He learnt some low-cost and biological
recipes of crop nutrition and protection pres-
ently used by several farmers and upon lab stud-
ies, found them scientifically plausible. Feedback
from users is greatly helping companies in evolv-
ing new software (technology) and is fuelling
development in IT industry. On similar lines
there is a lesson for the scientists in agriculture,
he stated.
Dr. Rupela also emphasized on the importance
to understand about the different elements
needed for crop production and the way these
can be sourced by plants. Of the over 30
elements needed, four (C, O, H and N)
represent over 90% of a plant’s dry weight and
all are gases. All the other elements (including
P and K); micro and trace elements together
form only about 10% of total dry mass of a
plant. He informed that even in a N poor soil
having much less than 1000 ppm of total N (as
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
bound or un-available form) in top 30 cm soil
profile, where most roots of an annual crop re-
side, can be 2 to 3 t per ha. Out of this
tonnage, typical uptake rate for every t of grain
is 20 kg N and 5 kg P for rice, and 40 kg N and
8 kg P for pigeonpea. Thus total N and total P
can be substantial even in a so-called poor soil
and compared to that crop demand is not so
62
much. What is needed is a dynamic system that
converts a very small part (eg. only 100 kg N
for a yield of 5 t ha-1, out of the 2 to 3 t of N in
soil profile in case of rice) of these total or
bound/un-available nutrients into available
form which is plausibly happening at fields of
OF practitioners. Such fields have generally
been noted to use biomass (e.g. compost) and
materials rich in beneficial microorganisms and
need to be validated. Taking note of this,
governments should even promote dry-dairy
and encourage farmers to use locally available
materials such as cow dung-based products as
source of beneficial morcroorganisms. Fertilizer
use efficiency is generally <30% in rainfed
farming.
According to Dr Rupela, productivity from a
unit land and farmers’ profits are more
important than yield of a single crop and should
be used as a yard stick for selecting a given
input or protocol. Integration of different
components of agriculture, particularly animal,
crops and trees on a given field/farm, is the need
of the hour. There is also a need to develop
‘farmer-empowering’ agriculture production
protocols.
With respect to development programs, he said
that State Agriculture Departments should
develop farmer-friendly programs for scale-up.
He also felt that crop production should largely
be based on harnessing locally available/
generated natural resource. Chemical
fertilizers should only be need-based and
minimal, and must not be subsidized. Subsidies
or assistance targeted to farmers should be
provided through farmer groups and not to
individual farmers.
Disclaimer: These views are of Dr. O.P. Rupela
and do not have endorsement of ICRISAT,
where he works. ■
 Lead Discussion
Need for "Priority" Shift
D r. Arun K. Sharma, (CAZRI, Jodhpur)
initiated the discussion. He stressed on the need
to find out feasible approach and possible
support for organic farming in dry land areas.
He suggested ‘priority shift’ in place of
‘paradigm shift’ such that higher attention could
be given to organic farming in all the rural
development programmes instead of
promoting as a new programme. Farmers of
rainfed areas are already following 50-60
percent practices of organic farming. The only
need is to enhance their understanding and skill
for adoption of other ecotechnologies. Stating
External Inputs are Critical
D r. M.A. Shankar, University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore remarked that handful of
soil sustains mankind. He emphasized on
integrating farm with nutrients as plants require
‘deficient or differential’ nutrients. These
differential nutrients could be substituted by
external inputs. To substantiate this contention,
he presented data related to effect of long-term
integrated use of FYM and NPK fertilizers on
soil organic carbon status of Alfisols and effect
of long term use of FYM, green leaf manure,
NPK fertilizers on soil organic carbon status in
cereal - legume rotation. Data related to soil
that ‘simple is sustainable’ he called for
attention towards necessary support systems for
organic farming. Restriction and regulation on
use of ground water should be one of the focus
areas.
He also shared CAZRI’s experiences in this
regard. These experiences pointed out that;
efficient recycling of organic matter is more
important than organic matter build up in
tropics. Summer plowing can cause heavy loss
of SOM. Trees in the field contribute and
conserve organic matter and support biological
activity. Ley-farming helps soil organic matter
build up. Rainwater harvesting, green
manuring and mulching contribute a lot in
nutrient mobilization to plants. Non-edible
oilseed cakes controls soil pest and reduces
nitrogen loss. Raw cow dung use by farmers
should be stopped and replaced by ‘enriched
compost’, a good substitute for chemical
fertilizers in terms of nutrient status and
releasing pattern of the chemical fertilizers.
■
fertility status after harvest of Finger millet and
ground nut as influenced by incorporation of
different green leaf manures and FYM was also
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
63
 presented. ‘nutrient banks’ in dryland farming. He
recommended for policy support for creation
Dr. Shankar also outlined the approaches to
of these nutrient banks and extend subsidy to
build soil organic carbon in terms of: tillage
green manure, biomass augmentation
practices, off-season cover crops, crop rotation
(Employment generation). Support is also
with legumes, mixed crop with legumes, green
needed for setting up of small scale green
manuring (in-situ and ex situ) and carbon
manure processing units (pellet formulations)
sequestering (depth of placement, mixtures of
and encouraging green manure legume trees on
organic matter). He suggested emphasizing on
bunds.
farming system approach for building up
organic matter in a long run for establishing ■
Open Discussion
T he discussion started with a critical question investments are needed for research.
about enquiring the farmers not adopting the Intervening, Dr. Venkateswarlu opined that the
research results. Shri Ravindra pointed out that first requirement in spread of ecological /
there were intense efforts in promoting organic agriculture is the need to change the
chemical fertilizers by the scientific mindset of R&D workers. The TINA to
establishment. Scientists used to go to the farms chemical agriculture must be obliterated. That
in the night and apply fertilizers on behalf of would be the first step in the Road Map for
farmers to show the results for them. Dr. G.B. exploring and enhancing internalized
Singh (ICAR) referred about green manuring production systems, particularly in the case of
experiment in a small village in Punjab and told smallholders.
that farmers are now slowly recognizing the
On the question that why farmers are not
importance of biomass in building up soil
adopting the research results, Dr. Rupela said
fertility. Dr. Sudip Mitra (MSSRF) enquired
that the answer lies in the point raised by Shri
about the feasibility of carbon trading concept
Ravindra with regard to ‘intense extension
and effect on termites with biomass usage.
practices’. On technology front, he
Dr. Radhika Rani (NIRD) expressed
acknowledged that some of the components
apprehension whether there is feasibility in
were not adopted but no one is sure about the
NREGS for promoting interventions related to
missing link. He called it as a ‘common
organic farming. Dr. J.Venkateswarlu explained
problem’ and suggested to have proper
that there are critical elements in NREGS that
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

discussion to find out the solution. On carbon

can create sustainable assets which inherently
sequestering, Dr. Rupela said that technically it
provides scope for extending it to promote the
is manageable. On effect on termites with use
organic agriculture. Dr. Shankar remarked that
of biomass, he shared his experience in his
the present investment in research is external
experiment where they were able to eliminate
led and structured. These need to be increased
the ‘queen’ to manage the termites as it was
and tied up and should be freed from such
small field of just one hectare area. The
hassels. Dr.Katyal also agreed with this
experiment also used the weeds as ‘value
contention and said that the kind of attention
addition’.
on this aspect should be more and higher
64
Co-chairperson Dr. Y.S. Ramakrishna expressed
that there is wide acceptance on the importance
of organic agriculture but the issue is how to
promote it. The need is to enable the farmers
with government support and providing
incentives to them as it is a cumbersome
process. Incentives like that of irrigation sector
must be extended for these farmers. The focus
should be on promoting ‘conservation
agriculture’ wherein the requirements of
livestock and biomass are also addressed. He
remarked that green revolution has provided
the results but there was an extensive use of
chemical fertilizers. At present the need is for
‘balanced use of organic and inorganics’ atleast
in the initial period and gradually move
towards organic. Exploratory thinking should
take place for promoting organic agriculture in
hilly and tribal areas.
In his concluding remarks, Chairperson
Dr. J.C. Katyal reflected that the presentations
in the session were excellent and
comprehensive. He endorsed Dr.Rupela’s views
and said that specific recommendations should
be made after properly pondering over them.
Emphasis should be more on ‘non cash
incentives’ and some kind of ‘reward’ should
be thought of for farmers who build organic
matter in the soil. This organic matter
application should be ‘non competitive’ so that
it can be widely accepted. He said that
nitrogen use efficiency is less than 30 percent
and it is variable. The road map should entail
the elements like ‘non counter conservation,
no cash and non competitive’ encouragement
for promoting rainfed agriculture. Stating that
participatory research and rainfed areas are
‘inseparable’, he emphasized on the need for
research towards ‘participatory organic matter
management’.
■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
65
 SESSION – IV
Parallel Session
Theme – D: Separate Policy for Water Resource in Rainfed Areas
Chairperson
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Shri Himanshu Thakkar, Coordinator, SANDRP

Co-chairperson
Shri K.J. Joy, Secretary, SOPPECOM
Rapporteur
Shri Shailender Tiwari, In Charge (NRM Unit), Seva Mandir
66
 Analysis of Existing Support Systems for Water
Resource Development in Rainfed and Irrigated
Areas
Dr. K.V. Rao
Senior Scientist (Soil & Water Conservation Engg.), CRIDA
D r K. V. Rao gave an overview of the gap
between investments and the potential tapped
in irrigation sector and increase in crop
productivity over the years. He stressed on the
criticality of supplemental irrigation in
increasing the productivity in rainfed regions.
Dr. Rao presented the investment and support
pattern for irrigated and rainfed areas. He stated
that it is evident that the gap between potential
created and utilized in the irrigation
development is consistently increasing during
the Five Year Plans. Most of the area in the
country remained rainfed though the
investments in the irrigation sector (major,
medium and minor) reached a staggering one
lakh crore rupees during Xth Five Year Plan from
nearly 9000 crores in the First Plan. Investment
on irrigation per hectare based on potential
created during Xth Five Year Plan is around
Rs. 1,30,000 in major and Rs 70,000 in minor
irrigated areas. He said that this investment
has targeted potential creation of only 15
million hectares of irrigated land in the
country. Additionally these areas, were
supported through water management
activities by CAD Programs etc. In case of lift
irrigation projects, support existed for
operational costs, towards electricity for
pumping, etc. In tank irrigation systems the
maintenance activities, desiltation etc are
regularly taken care by respective government
departments.
Dr. Rao observed that the investment through
watershed programs from different schemes,
since inception, were around Rs 20,000 crores
only. But this investment could treat nearly 39
million hectares of land in the country. Here
the investment cost is around Rs 6000/ha
towards all land based activities and
productivity enhancement related
interventions. With regard to fund allocation,
50% fund was provided to NRM activities (in
WARASA) and 85% funds for watershed
treatment/ development works/ activities (in
Hariyali). Water resource augmentation was
done through community based harvesting
structures (5% contribution by group and 10%
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
for individual oriented works). He said that there
was no explicit support system for collective use
of augmented resources in watershed areas.
There were no restrictions on water extraction
and utilization from subsurface. Though some
states have regulatory mechanism these again
favoured the existing well owners!
With regard to groundwater irrigation, Dr.Rao
said that uniform policy is followed across
67
 rainfed and irrigated areas. Support is through
operational costs for pumping (full to partial
across the country). Cost towards creation of
source (open/tube well) is borne by
individuals/ groups. In some interventions like
AP Wells Programme/ APMIDC, community
tube wells were paid for with a condition that
predetermined cropping pattern would be
followed.
He said that there are support systems
available for those who have water resources
through Ministry of Agriculture. With regard
to sprinklers 50% of the cost or Rs.15000/-,
whichever is less, is given to small and marginal
farmers, scheduled caste/tribes and women
farmers. For other categories of farmers it is
around 33% of the cost or Rs.10000/-, which-
ever is less. Financial assistance to the
beneficiary for sprinkler irrigation was limited
to 50 percent of the cost subject to a maximum
of Rs.7500/- per ha. States are at liberty to
prescribe rates of assistance (as is being done in
the State of Rajasthan) to cover more number
of farmers thereby bringing larger area under
the system. Support for sprinkler irrigation
under National Bamboo Mission for DPAP
areas is to the extent of 50% of cost subject to a
maximum of Rs. 20000/- per ha to a limit of 4
ha. per beneficiary. The rate of assistance for
drip irrigation to different categories of
beneficiaries varies with the maximum ceiling
of 4 ha. per beneficiary. With regard to diesel
pump sets, the limit of assistance is to the
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
extent of 50% of cost, up to Rs.10000/- per set.
Under National Horticulture Mission (NHM),
there is assistance for creating water sources
(construction of community tanks, farm ponds/
reservoirs with plastic lining) limited to Rs.10.00
lakh per unit for an area of 10 ha to be taken up
on community basis. Here maintenance of the
water source is the responsibility of the
community. It is a Centrally sponsored scheme
68
in which 40% will be borne by the Central
Government, 10% by the State Government and
the remaining 50% by the beneficiary either
through own source or soft loan financial
institutions. This assistance to farmers is given
covering a maximum area of five ha per
beneficiary family. All categories of farmers are
covered under the scheme. However, it is
ensured that at least 25% of the beneficiaries
are small and marginal farmers.
Under micro irrigation system (APMIP), a
subsidy of 70% of the cost or Rs 50,000 per ha,
whichever lower is available. This also covered
all categories of farmers, only condition is the
availability of water source is to be ensured by
the farmer. This subsidy can also be availed for
sharing the water resource.
Dr.Rao also presented data related to rain
water use efficiency from district level database
for crops like Groundnut, Rice, Castor etc. He
also elaborated on the estimated water use
efficiency values for different crops (Actual and
with improved technologies), estimated Crop
Water Productivity, Field Water Use Efficiency,
Project Water Use Efficiency for selected Lift
Irrigation Schemes, Irrigation application
methods and comparative water use
efficiencies on the basis of some experimental
results. Is it possible to enhance the water
productivity by conservation alone is the
challenge.
Dr.Rao provided details about how
supplemental irrigation improved tobacco grade
in some areas. “If there is opportunity for
supplemental irrigation, there is run off
available, which can be harvested and used
either in Rabi or Kharif seasons…” According
to him, in-situ conservation measures play an
important role in Arid and Semi Arid Areas.
Methods that increase soil organic matter also
increase water use efficiency for different crops.
He also elaborated on the components of provided. Required provisions should be made
Rainwater Management in watersheds like for augmented surface water resources in
in-situ conservation, Graded line Bunding, water harvesting structures to be used for
Drainage line treatment, Water harvesting & supplemental/ protective irrigation. Support for
utilization, Groundwater recharge etc. infrastructure i.e. for harvesting in farm ponds
etc and/ or infrastructure for application can
He presented data related to effect of
be made available through public investment.
management practices on yields of different
Individual farm oriented activities can be
crops over four years at CRIDA station, effect
thought in high rainfall areas with higher
of mulches on yield of Maize + Pigeonpea
individual contribution. Augmented ground
intercropping system under rainfed conditions
water resources can be utilised through
at Phulbani, influence of intercrops under
community/ group/ village owned and public
upland conditions in Ranchi etc. There was also
investment driven water extraction facilities.
data related to effect on yields of groundnut
Better irrigation application methods can also
with long term nutrient management in
be employed. PR institutions can play a greater
experiments at Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh
role along with user groups. Water
and AICRPDA centre at Indore. He presented
productivity for the watershed should be the
GIS maps related to spatial distribution of
focus rather than the productivity of
harvestable surplus (ha-m) across different
individual’s field.
districts and harvestable surplus across rainfed
rice growing region which clearly indicated Tanks/ lift irrigation schemes have to be re-
untapped potential in the country. designed with a pattern for implementation of
irrigated-dry cops. There is a need to reduce
Dr. Rao stated that there is comparatively low
conveyance losses through piped water
level of support for water resource development
transport. Sprinklers etc can be promoted for
in rainfed areas. He said that there is need for
better application. Preference is to be given for
providing support systems for water resource
Dryland Horticulture with in-situ conservation
development in rainfed areas through
measures than irrigated horticulture in rainfed
watersheds, redesigned tank and lift irrigation
areas. If irrigated horticulture is to be promoted,
schemes, promoting dry land horticulture and
micro irrigation has to be ensured with deficit
evolving differential policy incentives for micro
irrigation practices. There is also need to evolve
irrigation application in canal command areas
differential policy incentives for micro irrigation
and rainfed areas
application in canal command areas and rainfed
In watersheds, better utilization could be the areas.

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

focus of the program rather than augmentation
Dr.Rao suggested that use of micro-irrigation
alone. Utilization of resources cannot be left to
systems be made mandatory in all dark and
individuals. There should be incentives for
grey (groundwater) blocks. When farmers are
productivity through in-situ measures. Group/
offered subsidized electricity for irrigation and
community/ village could be the focus rather
for cultivating high water consuming crops,
than individual. Panchayat institutions/ user
projects involving rain water harvesting,
groups are to be encouraged. Necessary
watershed management and lift irrigation
support in terms of systems for group/
should also be subsidized. He suggested that
community oriented activities need to be
69
 third parties should be welcomed to undertake
micro irrigation projects on farm holdings. Since
land holdings are fragmented, the area could
be demarcated like telecom circles (area wise)
rather than on a per project basis. 3-5
enterprises could be allowed in each circle so
that monopolies do not exist while at the same
time, these enterprises could enjoy economies
of scale. The projects could be seen as third party
loans to farmers and relegated as land
development projects. According to him, these
enterprises could also access the capital
Emerging Experiences on Sustainable Use of
Water Resource in Rainfed Areas: Social
Regulations as an Approach; Field Experiences
Shri S.K. Anwar
Programme Coordinator, OXFAM
Shri Anwar’s presentation is based on the
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
experience involved by NRI (UK), CRIDA, CWS
and AKRSP. This project covered 1665 families
in 3 villages in 3 districts of Andhra Pradesh.
Focus was on developing ‘Social Regulations’
and ‘Collective Action’ with Water Literacy,
Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM)
of Groundwater recharge, saving and sharing.
It was taken up with learnings from DFID s
upported study (2001) on Common Pool
70
markets through tax free bonds if micro
irrigation projects are given the status of
infrastructure. He also took reference of the
report of the working group on Rainfed Areas
for formulation of XIth Five Year Plan and
suggested that there is also a need for
increasing/sustaining the groundwater
recharge in dryland areas through Bhu Jal
Mitras, Tank Recharge Shaft Component and
Water Harvesting Structures etc.
■
Resources (CPRs). Anwar said that this study
highlighted certain policy and practice issues
regarding management of CPRs. There is no
coherent policy frame work for CPRs and
various policies pursued substantially affected
the status. There was also exclusion of certain
marginalized groups in the public policies. “…
As long as CPRs are not productive, they are in
the hands of the poor, once they are made
productive, they are out of the hands of the
poor…” he observed. This study also
recognized that groundwater is most critical
resource when compared to other CPRs in an
open access regime.
Shri Anwar pointed out that access to
irrigation is central to the impact of watershed
interventions as highlighted by various studies.
Referring to WASSAN’s study, he said that
private investments in deep bore-wells are
matching the scale of project investments in

List of farmers started sharing water (In 2006)
watershed areas. Cultivation of water intensive
crops like paddy and sugarcane in the dry lands
amounts to inefficienct water use. Farmers are
after water at any cost and the process of ex-
ploitation of water resources is continuously
increasing.
In this type of scenario, an intervention took
place in Madirepalli of Anantapur district in
Andhra Pradesh. There was ‘borewell race’ in
that village at that time. It is small village with
166 households and a population of 721. The
cultivable area is 687 acres in which 290 acres
were under irrigation. Agriculture was basically
rainfed with borewells contributing 29% of
irrigation. Paddy, Groundnut, Sweet lime,
Maize, Vegetables were the common crops.
At the time of intervention, there were 57
functional open wells. There were 137 borewells
of which 65 were functional. There was a
major shift from shallow open wells to bore wells
in previous 15 years and farmers heavily
invested on borewells. But many bore wells
failed either at the time of drilling or later
causing huge loss of investments to farmers. At
the same time ‘chasing the groundwater’ and
competition among neighbors increased.
Anwar said that a farmer in this village dug 29
borewells in his small field! The gravity of the
situation was that farmers used to say,
“… either the bore has to die…or I have to die.”
The intervention tried to address some questions
like: How can water demand be regulated to
ensure that everyone has access to at least
minimum water for drinking and household
purposes? How the available water resources
are used judiciously? What type of
information about water availability and
water use would organisations or bodies at
community level and at higher level (e.g.
Mandal, district, state) require that enable them
to manage water resources in equitable and
sustainable manner? What types of social
institutions, regulations, rules and norms does
it need to do this? How can such institutions
be formalized in community-based
organisations that have the authority to enforce
the rules? What should be the ‘boundary’ or
‘scale’ of such organisations (tributary level,
watershed level, village level, Panchayat level
etc.).
The program invested Rs 12 lakhs in 3 villages
on drinking water needs, borewell groups,
incentives for pipes, group sprinkler units etc.
Social process of sharing, understanding
arrangements, water recharge structures were
developed through existing government
schemes. Inbuilt support accrued from APMIP
and power subsidies etc.
Shri Anwar said that, with the community
participation, certain social regulations were
evolved in the intervention such as prioritizing
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
water needs with focus on drinking water,
providing critical irrigation, no new borewells
in the village, access to groundwater to other
families, increasing the groundwater resources
by conservation & recharge and efficient use of
irrigation water by demand-side management.
By 2007 there were significant results. There was
‘no paddy’ under bore wells. 55 out of 65
71
 functional bore wells came under sharing
system. Farmers organized into groups and
started discussing about PHM. Investments
were made on pipes and sprinklers to the
organized groups. In Kharif 2007, 516 acres of
land came under critical irrigation. These
farmers got good crops while in most of the
neighboring villages, crops were affected due
to drought. Anwar said that there was a
significant lesson in the process which
emphasizes that “One critical irrigation makes
a huge difference”.
Rainfall, groundwater levels and cropping
pattern were regularly monitored involving
farmers as part of PHM and Water Budgeting.
With this, drawal of water (as a % of available
water) reduced from 125% to 95%. There was
visible declining trend in water extraction which
needs to be established over longer period.
Shri Anwar pointed out that flood irrigation is
the dominant trend in agriculture. He presented
data about this trend. In India, gravity systems
dominated until 1970s. Since early 1990s
groundwater surpassed surface irrigation. The
share of irrigated area through surface water
declined from 62 to 46%, whereas
groundwater irrigated area increased from 38
to 54% during 1970 – 95. 100 million farming
families have 19 million tubewells and pumps
in the country!
Shri Anwar commented that there is no proper
legal back up with regard to groundwater
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
management. A draft model bill was circulated
by the Central Government in 1996 to assist the
states (finalized in Jan 2005). It recommended
establishing Groundwater Authorities (GWA)
at the state level. This GWA has to advice the
state governments to notify an area for the
72
purpose of groundwater control and regulation.
It was to regulate groundwater through a
system of permits, registration and licences. It
was also to be empowered to inspect wells,
install water measuring devices, seize
equipment, impose penalties etc. Various states
initiated legislative measures to enable them to
regulate groundwater and at present states like
Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,
West Bengal have acts on groundwater. But
unfortunately there are problems in
implementation. Anwar said that an Expert
group report on groundwater management has
also pointed out that the regulations are not
working and in-equities are still an issue. In
this context, he took reference from Prof. Abhijit
Sen and emphasized on decentralized decision
making with regard to regulations/
management.
Concluding the presentation, Shri Anwar
stressed on the need for a paradigm shift in
Public and Private investments. He suggested
that focus should be on critical irrigation
practices under wells and borewells. It is
important to develop necessary infrastructure
for this. According to him, ‘incentives’ should
be given to farmers who do not drill new wells
but share water and use water-saving
technologies. Public support is to be extended
for sub systems like PHM, regulations, water
efficient methods and there is a need to
promote crops that suit to the regions.
Collective action and social process of
regulations should be encouraged with
capacity building of community and effective
research and extension. There is also need to
evolve proper institutional process that supports
such social regulation mechanisms.
■
 Lead Discussion
Rights on Resources for Effective Use
I nitiating the discussion Shri N.L. Narasimha
Reddy (PLF) said that the issue in resource
management is the effective use. Most of the
programs focus on creating resources but
‘effective use of these resources is not dealt with’.
According to him, community systems are also
not having ‘enough maturity’ to deal with this
issue as there are visible constraints related to
resource management and institutions. For e.g.
in watershed program critical concerns are user
rights and management of structures. How to
enable a process of community management of
resources? How to make decentralization more
Affordable Technologies for Rainfed Farming
S hri O.S. Tyagi (IDEI) made his presentation
on some technologies that are affordable,
produced locally and environmentally
sustainable. These are being provided in
local markets through private suppliers. He
elaborated on how the current products do not
meet the needs of small holding farmers as they
are designed long back and are expensive. He
said that IDEI products like Treadle Pumps for
water lifting and Drip Systems (KB Drip) for
water application belong to affordable
irrigation technology.
effective? He said that there are gaps at
community level management, particularly
with regard to crop and groundwater
management. In these circumstances, how to
rebuild the role of community/ different
institutions and make them more effective?
These are the critical questions for which we
have to find suitable answers. He felt that ‘rights
on resources’ should not end with providing
access to the resources but should focus on
sustaining them.
Shri Reddy also stated that there is bias towards
irrigation sector in Water Policy and significance
is not given to address the concerns related to
rainfed areas. He suggested that policy for
rainfed areas should focus on the needs of
vulnerable groups like women, poor, SCs, STs
and it should also address the concerns of
different agro-climatic conditions. As the needs
of the rainfed areas are different, they need
distinct policy, he concluded.
■
He informed that KB Drip reduces entry
barrier cost and can be used for larger fields.
This was tried out in 90 crops and nearly 350,000
farmers have purchased this so far. The Treadle
Pumps can draw water from underground
aquifers. Emphasizing on the need to provide
low cost technology for poor farmers, he
concluded his presentation with reference to
eminent management guru Prof. C K Prahlad,
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
“.. that the future lies with those companies who
see the poor as their customers “. ■
73
 Open Discussion
S hri S.C. Jain (AFPRO) observed that water is
available in ‘pockets’ even in rainfed areas, but
what is required is efficient use of such precious
pockets. He said that watershed approach with
necessary ‘regulatory mechanisms’ would
provide solution to the concerns of these areas.
Shri Achyut Das (Agragamee) remarked that
policies are also biased. What is the correlation
between drought and flood in rainfed areas he
questioned. On equity issues, he observed that
if industries are exploiting water resources, who
should address it?
Shri Ashok Bang (Chetana) remarked that
water is most critical constraint for rainfed
areas and it has complex policy implications.
He said that 50% of rainfall is received within
short time in the country. “…On one hand,
there is so much rainfall. On the other hand,
there is shortage of water. What is the
solution?” he questioned. He felt that there is
need for training ‘Water Harvesting Engineers’
in the villages as there is potential of increasing
10-20% moisture/ water with in-situ
conservation measures. He suggested that the
community should be vested with necessary
capacities to use rainwater efficiently.
Dr. J. Venkateswarlu observed that the
traditional water harvesting structures are very
important in hilly areas of North-Eastern part
of the country. Ravindra raised a pertinent
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
question on ‘looking at water’: “…When we talk
about watersheds, we are talking about water
harvesting. Can’t we see ‘moisture’ also as
water?”
Dr. B. Venkateswarlu (CRIDA) pointed out that
water use and land use cannot be separated and
should be addressed in a conjunctive manner.
Dr. Rama Krishna (CRIDA) suggested
incentives for farmers who undertake in-situ
74
measures. Groundwater rights can also be given
to farmers upto a depth of 200 feet. He felt that
there is a need to enlighten the farmers on the
significance of social regulation.
Dr. Sudip Mitra questioned on the way the
investments are used. “…what do we do with
the crores of rupees being invested to create new
assets? If we can renovate the newly created
assets and existing structures under watershed
program, it can do wonders. Is there any space
for such thinking in the policy…”, he probed.
Dr. G.B. Singh (ICAR) observed that there is
greater stress on livestock under the arid
conditions. He also pointed out that there are
higher seepage and run off losses under
watershed structures and suggested to
‘subsidize’ the efforts that check such losses.
Responding to the discussion, Dr. K.V.Rao
explained that it is not possible to promote
water harvesting structures for every crop
because of different rainfall patterns and agro
climatic conditions. He underlined on the need
to bring the ground water usage within the
framework of watershed approach. He felt that
the focus should not be on the augmentation
alone but on conservation and making better
use of water. In-situ conservation measures need
to be promoted and appropriate technologies
are available for that purpose. In his opinion,
the choice of cropping pattern should be left to
the people of that particular area. On
renovation of existing structures, he said that
‘funds’ are available even in small schemes but
the question is how to use them efficiently. On
incentives, he observed that they should be
extended for undertaking in-situ measures.
“…Even a simple 1000 rupees makes lot of
difference and provide benefits in terms of
better water use efficiency and productivity en-
hancement…”
Shri Anwar agreed with participant’s
contention to ‘broadbase’ the presentation. He
observed that there are issues related to
‘inequities’ existing in watersheds and
addressing these issues is a big challenge, more
so in rainfed systems. He agreed that ‘soil
moisture is also equal to visible water’ and
remarked that this change in thinking can
change the entire paradigm. As rainfed
farming does not include irrigation, the need is
to provide incentives for moisture conservation
in rainfed areas.
Co-chairperson, Shri K.J.Joy (SOPPECOM)
observed that the presentations unraveled most
of the issues of the rainfed areas. He said that it
was ‘heartening’ to see focused discussion on
water for rainfed areas. He said that there is a
need for social regulation mechanisms and it is
not in-situ versus irrigation but the focus should
be on the extent of ‘applied water’ for rainfed
areas. He favoured to ‘partition’ the available
water according to the needs and requirements
of vulnerable people across different regions in
different conditions. On equity issues, he
observed that there is no policy initiative to see
what is happening with the ‘saved water’.
According to him, it should go to ‘common
pool’. He also suggested restructuring the
existing irrigation projects and re-distributing
the water on ‘equitable basis’.
Chairperson, Shri Himanshu Thakkar
(SANDRP) stated that though every farmer
needs water, the bias in certain aspects need to
be addressed properly. Out of the 57.44 million
net irrigated area of the country only about 17.79
million ha is canal irrigated, 35.18 m
ha comes from groundwater areas and the
rest from minor schemes. From 1991-92 to 2003-
04 (the latest year for which data is available
from Ministry of Agriculture), the governments
have spent about Rs 100000 crores on major
and medium irrigation projects, but there has
not been an addition of single ha of net irrigated
area by Canals (major and medium projects)
during this period. On the contrary there has
been a drop of about 3.14 m ha in net irrigated
area during this period. And yet XIth Five Year
Plan again envisages to spend lions share of
about Rs 115000 crores on such projects, not
bothering about the vast rainfed areas or even
the created infrastructure. There is need to raise
serious questions on these policies and
priorities.
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Stating the Groundwater as ‘Lifeline of Indian
Agriculture’, Shri Himanshu Thakkar observed
that though the government has brought in a
draft bill to establish Ground Water Authority,
it was not so serious and sensitive in sustaining
groundwater. The need for the government is
to know about the support systems that sustain
ground water. He observed: “…First there is
need to sustain what we have… then only we
75
 can think of some new interventions… The
irony is that there are no efforts to protect the
existing recharge structures and no efficient
regulations that can ‘empower the community’
in real sense”. Taking reference to an incident
in Kaveri Basin area, he deplored the role played
by media, judiciary and political system in
dancing with ‘catchment dynamics’. In that
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
76
area, tank desiltaion was stopped by the
government as it was felt that it was
obstructing the flow into Mettur Dam! Thakkar
concluded the session with stress on the need
for having a ‘clear and defined’ policy for
rainfed areas, particularly with regard to
water.
■
 SESSION – IV
Parallel Session
Theme – E: Self reliant development through sustainable community
based organizations and reforms in management of institutional
credit

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Chairperson
Dr. J. Venkateswarlu, Ex-Director, CAZRI
Co-chairperson
Prof. M.R. Sharma, Chief Consultant, National Horticulture Mission
Rapporteur
Dr. M.A. Shankar, Chief Scientist, Dryland Research Center, UAS
77
 Sustainable Development of Agriculture through
SHGs & their Federations – A Case Study in
Andhra Pradesh
Shri T. Vijay Kumar, IAS
CEO, SERP
S hri Vijay Kumar started stating that
sustainable poverty eradication is possible only
through organized poor. Indira Kranthi Patham
(IKP) is one such vehicle which emphasized on
women’s empowerment for poverty
eradication. Society for Elimination of Rural
Poverty (SERP) in Andhra Pradesh is
implementing this project (worth Rs.2100
million) statewide to raise rural poor’s income
and improve quality of life. The focus of this
program is in creating knowledge and
awareness, organizing rural women groups and
providing investment support through
institutional linkages like Government
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Departments, Financial Institutions, Panchayat
Raj Institutions, Markets and other Non
Government Institutions.
The program is present in every village of the
state. More than 90 percent of rural poor were
organized and SHGs have been formed in each
village. So far 8.65 million of rural women were
organized into 6,88,200 SHGs (upto March
2007) and 35 percent of all SHGs in the
78
country are in Andhra Pradesh. They have their
own savings of Rs.13400 million and a corpus
of Rs. 29900 million. These SHGS have been
further organized into 31,500 Village
Organisations (VOs), 946 Mandal Mahila
Samakhyas (MMSs) and 21 Zilla Samakhyas (ZSs)
across the state. There is ‘role specificity’ for each
of these institutions in this 3 tier structure but
the guiding principle is ‘subsidiarity’.
The program vision is ‘to enable each poor
family in the state, to improve their livelihoods
and quality of life’. It believes that a family out
of poverty experiences improved status in
society; it will have comprehensive food
security – freedom from hunger; it earns
minimum of Rs.5000/- per month, from 3 - 4
stable livelihoods; there will be planned
house-hold expenditure and social security –
risks to life, health, assets and incomes would
be covered; it will have good shelter, good
education and good health.
With community based targeting - focus on the
ultra-poor with extending finance, the program
achieved a project finance in terms of
Common Investment Fund (CIF) to the tune of
Rs. 8690 million. Financing to SHGs through
Banks increased from Rs.1970 million to Rs. 3225
million in 6 years reflecting a 16 fold increase.
Andhra Pradesh accounts for 45 percent total
bank lending for SHGs in the country. Other
initiatives include Pavala vaddi (25 paise
interest), debt swapping by banks etc. The asset
base of poor was strengthened with investments
in agriculture, livestock, non-farm activities,
small businesses etc. The program scale up was
not done by increasing project staff but by
increasing the stakeholders interests. Thus the
efforts are not ‘staff dependent’ but ‘beneficiary
oriented’.
Several initiatives are taken up in collective
marketing of agriculture, horticulture, NTFP
produce, dairy etc. They are meant to enable
the poor to get fair terms of trade for their
produce through their networks. As traditional
market yards are mostly trader centered and
not fair to poor farmers, Village level
Marketing Centres were established which are
being managed by SHGs. The Marketing
turnover of these Centers reached to Rs 2160
million in 2007-08 from just Rs 10 million in its
initial year (2001-02). The major commodities
are maize, paddy, redgram, soybean, neem,
groundnut, castor, coffee, cashew, NTFP etc.
There were intense efforts to build capacities of
the community, particularly women. They were
trained in handling, quality, logistics, finances,
marketing etc. To promote dairy related
enterprises, Milk Collection Centres in villages
and Bulk Chilling Units (BCUs) at mandal level
were established. He said that the major
constraint in these initiatives were in enabling
post harvest facilities, simple value addition and
storage at village level.
There was another initiative related to paddy
procurement. This was undertaken by Village
Organizations in partnership with APSCSC
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
during Rabi 2007. Procurement was done at
Minimum Support Price (MSP). Major support
from the State Government in this initiative was
to ensure MSP. The benefit reached small and
marginal farmers. With 316 village procurement
centres 324 thousand MT of paddy worth
Rs. 2100 million was procured. There was a
minimum benefit of Rs.800 per MT to farmers
To ensure community managed food security
79
 collective buying and supply of essential
commodities to members from open market on
credit was undertaken. It benefited 1.64 million
families by March, 2007 and each family could
save atleast Rs. 80 – 120 per month. It also
generated local demand for farmers produce.
An initiative was undertaken for promoting
community managed sustainable agriculture.
This was taken up in the context of acute
agricultural crisis as 16 out of 22 districts in
Andhra Pradesh are in distress. Ever
increasing costs of cultivation due to
externalization of inputs (particularly seeds and
pesticides), increasing dependence on traders
and dealers for credit, increasing ecological costs
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
due to high chemical use and decreasing
margins to farmers are causes of this crisis. In
spite of a vibrant SHG movement there was no
significant improvement in agriculture based
livelihoods. Marketing intervention was the first
major initiative in this regard. After searching
for options, scaling up of Non Pesticidal
Management (NPM) was tried out. This was
undertaken in nearly 160,000 ha across the state
80
with the support of 90 NGOs which in turn are
working with CBOs.
The NPM approach is a ‘‘system that maintains
the insect from reaching damaging stages and
proportions by managing healthy crop and
population dynamics in the crop ecosystem”.
Understanding insect biology and behavior,
crop ecosystem and making best use of local
resources and natural processes are critical
elements of this approach. The paradigm shift
is in looking pest-ecosystem relationship instead
of plant-pest relationship; adopting knowledge
and skill centric model in place of input centric;
using local natural resources instead of
external inputs; and emphasizing on
interactive learning instead of linear learning.
“...In approaches like NPM, the primacy at-
tached to the farmer is very critical… it is heart-
ening to see that the farmers are becoming sci-
entists …extension system was not accountable
to any external department but for the commu-
nity i.e. Village Organization. In that sense it
was purely community managed extension sys-
tem”, he observed.
This approach was able to bring farmers ‘out of
debt trap’. These experiences amply
demonstrated that ‘if proper support is given it
is possible to bring back life to villages’. The
initiative was able to develop nearly 12
pesticide free villages in Anantapur, Khammam
(needs to be documented) and few villages like
Gurrapu Konda became organic.
Another initiative was the community managed
seed banks that was piloted in 10 villages in
Anantapur district. With village self sufficiency
as goal, farmers produced seeds and VO helped
to distribute them among the farmers. The
focus was on seed retention rather than
replacement and increasing crop and
genetic diversity. One outcome of this initiative
was the availability of good quality seed, in time
to the farmers. By 2007-08, seed banks were
established in 70 villages for wide variety of
crops.
There was so much learning with these
initiatives and confidence on ecological models
of agriculture increased. NPM proved to be a
good stepping stone. A need for complete
paradigm shift in understanding and
supporting agriculture is identified. It was also
recognized that ecological and economic costs
of externalization of inputs is enormous.
Loosing control over seed is suicidal and
moving to organic is the way forward. Strong
natural resource base is required for sound
ecological farming and there is a need for policy
support to move forward. These initiatives were
also able to provide certain opportunities for
agricultural workers. NPM service centers,
Village enterprises, Agricultural Labour leasing
in land and undertaking NPM, seed
production, fodder production, neem seed
procurement and selling increased labor
employment days in these villages.
Yet another new initiative is being proposed by
the SERP towards Community Managed
Organic Farming. The idea is to bring 1.0
million hectares under organic farming in
rainfed areas in 5000 villages covering 1.0
million farm families. The objective is to increase
net incomes for small and marginal farmers in
rainfed areas. Starting with Non Pesticidal
Management initially, this initiative slowly
moves to organic farming over a period of 5
years. Seed banks that can provide self
sufficiency in cereals, pulses and oilseeds, farmer
driven extension systems, institutional credit
through SHG – bank linkage and integration
with NREGS for soil fertility improvement and
moisture conservation are the critical
interventions proposed in this initiative.
Shri Vijay Kumar concluded by saying that “…
if we work harmoniously with nature, we
benefit and nature also benefits… And
working with nature means more food
security and more income”. ■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
81
 Institutional Credit for Rainfed Areas –
Issues and Concerns
Shri P.V.S. Surya Kumar
DGM, NABARD
T his presentation focused on providing an
overview about existing credit system in the
country and tried to analyze the obstacles and
options. The focus was particularly with regard
to NABARD’s initiatives. At the outset,
Shri Surya Kumar informed that NABARD is
extending support for implementation of
watershed and tribal development projects in
the country covering 90,000 hectares of land,
mostly under dry land belt. In the available
credit under different schemes, all the farmers
are eligible for credit whether it is for short, support from Reserve Bank of India. There are
medium or long term. There is facility of intricacies in this cyclical credit: what happens
availing loan for ‘ploughing’ also. ‘Kisan Credit’ if crop fails in 4th or 5th year? Possible solution
program is applicable to entire country. There was to write off such credit, which is not fea-
is also a scheme by NABARD which is called as sible. The National Agricultural Insurance
‘potential linked credit plan’. Scheme was tried out across the country. Only
2-3 districts in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat
There is no negative or discriminatory bias by
have utilized this scheme to a maximum extent.
banking or financial system against farmers in
In the end, it was found that it was a difficult
rainfed areas. The lending process works in our
instrument to work with.
country if there is ‘pressure on the system’. It is
not the banks or financial institutions but the Rainfed areas are ‘risky’. The critical
district level committee that decides the lend- contention is that how can banks reach these
ing quota for their district. NABARD is in the areas and provide credit along with other
business of ‘Refinance” since its existence for external elements that are critical for rainfed
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

the last 25 years. This ‘powerful’ tool is being
utilized for promotion of lot of activities related
to agriculture, particularly dry land agriculture.
But “….providing access to money alone does
not do much for agriculture… If supporting
technology is not there, credit does not work…”
‘Cyclical credit’ was tried out in 5-6 states, but
results were not satisfactory. However, there is
some push towards extending this credit with
82
areas. The SHGs success in Andhra Pradesh
can be attributed to the state government’s
consistent back up and support.
On the new concept of ‘financial inclusion’,
there is also a thinking of providing ‘refinance’
facility to money lenders so as to make
repayment system efficient. On institutional
front, it is possible to make existing system
better or try a new model. The strong
institutional back up can better use the for the banks to design a ‘portifolio of loan’ for
available credit. In this regard the experience cattle and other livestock. Shri Surya Kumar
in Andhra Pradesh can be cited. There was a concluded by saying that the district level
‘federated structure’ of women groups which agricultural plans would be more productive
facilitated community level interventions by only when there is better coordination between
taking support from banks. There is the need the banks and CBOs. ■
Lead Discussion
External Market Linkages for SHGs are Needed
Dr. Gouri (APEDA) appreciated the experiment
of SERP and said that there should be more
such efforts for providing benefits to farmers.
If marketing part is taken care, then most of the
issues would be sorted out. The SHGs which
are now ‘producing’ for themselves should
explore ‘external’ market linkages for better
‘returns’. APEDA is exploring possible
collaboration with SERP for marketing SHG
products. ■
Open Discussion
There was a query on the sustainability of the needed for ‘upscaling’ the ‘upscaled’ programs.
SERP’s initiatives after the project support form Dr. Ramakrishna (CRIDA) asked about the
the World Bank is over. Another question was SERP approach towards livestock and
on the role of Rytu Mitra groups particularly in groundwater related issues.
dryland farming. Shri N.L. Narsimha Reddy felt
In response to the questions, Shri Vijay Kumar
that there are several people ‘left over’ from
told that ‘institutions of poor’ require certain
SHGs and options to include them in the
time to make impact socially, economically and
process should be explored. He observed that
politically. On World Bank support, he said that,
though many of the federated institutions are
‘if it withdraws, it is the responsibility of the
sustaining, they are not able to create ‘assets’.
state government to continue the support...’

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

There was also a question regarding the
‘responsibility of SHGs’ in preventing Bt cotton,
thus reducing farmers suicides in the villages.
Shri Ravindra argued for distinctly pricing NPM
produce with that of organic produce. Dr. B.
Venkateswarlu questioned whether the
community in the organic villages could stop
the Bt cotton. Shri Anwar sought to know about
the support systems and instruments that are
According to him, each institution has a
benchmark to function and on the basis of it
they will survive. For example, Mandal Mahila
Samakhya had a benchmark of financial and self
managed reliance.
On the role of Rytu Mitra groups, Shri Vijay
Kumar said that unfortunately they were not
strengthened to the desired extent. There was
83
 no ‘internal push’ and process visible in their
functioning. The need is for a binding factor
among the members. He told that there is some
serious thinking on evolving a strategy for
developing self sustainable farmer groups. On
scaling up the process, he remarked that “.. the
vision is the decent life of the ultra poor.. in this
sense the numbers do not count… The need is
to look not only at farming but also other
possible options in the process. More important
is the ‘investment in institutions’ which is the
foundation for any developmental program in
the country. Indeed these costs are very low and
unless we do that, benefits would not accrue”.
On addressing Bt cotton issue, Shri Vijay Kumar
hoped that more and more farmers would
gradually shift towards NPM and sustainable
agriculture. The strategy is to scale up much
more intensively. He opined that NPM/
sustainable agriculture would provide the
needed solution to address the farmers’ distress
that is very acute in many parts of the country.
According to Shri Vijay Kumar, NPM should
be an ‘entry point’ in watersheds and farming
system approach wherein there is space for
livestock, which is the need of the hour. He
concluded with a pointer that, “… whenever
he visits NPM areas, he is able to come with
new energy; even in the context of distress
elsewhere due to farmers suicides…”
On marketing of NPM produce, Dr. Gouri
responded that certification is a critical
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
marketing tool for convincing the consumers.
She observed that, “…our farmers are very
much educated and smart, they are ready to go
for certification if there are assured returns..”
Taking reference of the experience in European
Countries, she explained that there is a
situation prevailing where the farmer’s
certification is more valuable than other
certifications.
84
On credit scenario, Dr. Amita Shah felt that
initiatives are increasing to strengthen the credit
system in the country. She felt that the basic
credit and investment should be routed through
the State and sought to know the ‘fresh
thinking’ about lending and micro finance
related issues. Shri Vijay Kumar felt that the
best results are possible only when there is
win-win solution for farmers. He suggested for
‘consortium approach’ for lending support and
further fine tuning crop loan system. On
multiple membership and accessing loans from
different institutions, Shri Surya Kumar
clarified that “…it is the lender’s concern and
they should have clarity on the consequences”.
Co-chairperson Prof.
M.R. Sharma observed
that banks have given
top priority to involve
the SHGs and NGOs in
the development in the
country. He also
referred about the
‘Vikas Volunteer Vahini’ (VVV), an extension
vehicle of NABARD for critical lending in
priority areas by providing technical know-how
and do-how.
Chairperson Dr.
J.Venkateswarlu
appreciated the fact that
‘the experiences have
clearly shown that
farmers are becoming
scientists and there is institutionalization of
production system’. Reaching the unreached
has been highlighted. That community managed
development is sustainable has been clearly spelt
out in the discussions. He concluded by
stressing on the need for evolving proper policy
for credit system and capacity building of
farmers, particularly in the marketing related
aspects. ■
 SESSION – IV
Parallel Session
Theme - F. Self Reliant Development of Small Ruminants with
Resource Poor Families

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Chairperson
Dr.Y.S. Ramakrishna, Director, CRIDA
Co-chairperson
Dr. Kamal Kishore, Wool Consultant
Rapporteur
Dr. V. Padma Kumar, Programme Officer, CALPI
85
 Analysis of Existing Policies and Schemes for
Development of Small Ruminants
Dr. P. Sreeramulu
Retd. Addl. Director, Animal Husbandry, GoAP
D r. Sreeramulu gave an overview about the
current status of livestock in the country,
elaborated on the issues and provided the
needed approaches. He said that the livestock
distribution is more skewed and there are about
440 million livestock distributed over 100
million households across 600,000 villages. It is
an important livelihood activity, supporting
agriculture in the form of critical inputs like
draught power and manure, contributing to
food security of the household, supplementing
income, offering employment opportunities,
and in a sense, a dependable ‘bank on hooves’
during adverse situations. He pointed out that
in Indian context; livestock and agriculture are
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
intrinsically linked unike the West. India holds
about 182 million small ruminants (120 million
goats and 62 million sheep). These are mainly
for meat. Milk from goats, fiber from sheep, and
manure from both also contribute to the eco-
nomic value. The aggregate economic value,
employment, decentralized production pattern
conclusively proves in-built socio- economic
character of small ruminants in India.
However, the system still suffers from several
86
bottlenecks which discounts the optimum utili-
zation of resources.
The presentation elaborated on the distribution
of goats and sheep across the country. Goats
are widely distributed across all agro-climatic
regions and their concentration is mainly in the
states of West Bengal, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh.
Sheep population is found in the arid and
semi-arid areas of Western India, Deccan
Plateau and Western Himalayas. About 60%
of sheep population in the country is
concentrated in six states: Andhra Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Jammu &
Kashmir and Maharashtra. While the goats
density is highest in the irrigated ecosystem
followed by hill and mountain ecosystem, sheep
density is the highest in the arid eco-system and
least in the irrigated system.
Dr. Sreeramulu said that small ruminants make
an important contribution to the sustenance of
small and marginal farmers and landless rural
populace of India. They also make substantial
contribution, Rs.24,000 millions every year, to
the rural economy. At the national level, small
ruminants account for 14% meat, 4% of the milk
and 15% of skins and hide production and
contribute 10% of total value of livestock
sector. But he said that this component of
livestock is not getting proper attention in
budget allocations of national plans. Though a
number of micro studies concluded that the
small ruminants have great social and economic
relevance in poverty reduction and social
equity, paradoxically livestock sector receives a
paltry 2.5% of the public spending in the
country. Dr. Sreeramulu stated that “.... the
irony is that there is considerable bias against
small ruminants, they are perceived as inimical
to the ecosystem. There is insignificant space
given to this important component in the
national level policies… In XIth Plan also, it seems
there is consideration and mention about
grazing policy but nothing related to livestock
development”.
He elaborated on the government initiatives for
development of small ruminants. Several cross
breeding trials were attempted using exotic
breeds in sheep to evolve new breeds for wool
quality, particularly apparel variety. In goats,
cross breeding to improve milk yield or efforts
to improve Mohair too, have not yet provided
any conclusive results. “…Attempts at cross-
breeding of Indian breeds of sheep and goats
with exotic breeds have not served the Indian
livestock industry in any manner and were
mostly of academic interest”, he observed.
There is poor awareness regarding importance
of livestock in livelihoods. Dr. Sreeramulu
further dwelled on the issues concerned to
livestock in the country and suggested needed
approaches. Facilitating knowledge sharing
platforms, promoting value based changes for
key service providers and enabling women’s
participation in small ruminant rearing and
production are critical. On institutional front,
he said that efforts should be on mobilizing
rearers and organizing them into rearers
groups/ associations/ co-operatives. Existing
groups need to be strengthened. Pilots need to
be developed to promote equity based
representation of women in the rearer
organizations. He opined that outside agencies
like NGOs can be given proper space to
bringing in synergies/convergence, thus
empowering the rearers.
Dr. Sreeramulu remarked that there is pressure
on fodder resource base due to decline in the
CPR’s - area wise and quality wise. He stated
that, “…due to introduction of credit facilities,
many new entrants came into Small Ruminant
Development programmes who have little
awareness on rotation grazing, leading to the
increased dependency on CPR’s and resultant
degradation of grazing lands..” He suggested
that there is need to develop CPRs on
sustainable basis for addressing these issues. He
felt that Civil society organisations with NRM
experience need to be identified for supporting
community mobilization and participation.
Feed supplementation and fodder base
regeneration activities need to be taken up.
There is a need for emphasized propagation of
multi purpose fodder trees and these efforts
should not be limited to just ‘greening’ the land.
Village committees must be empowered in
managing the land and civil society groups can
facilitate the process. There is a need to develop
mechanisms to enable the community to ensure
a balance between stocking rate and the
biomass availability. Efforts should also be there
on long-term sustainability of CPR by
balancing cost and benefit/ income. In this
regard, Dr. Sreeramulu mentioned that there
are some efforts in states like Madhya Pradesh
and Himachal Pradesh in developing CPRs for
livestock. There are also efforts in Andhra
Pradesh, with CBO and NGO interventions.
Pointing out that illiteracy is high in shepherds
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
he said that they are aloof from the rest of the
village. Another critical issue he raised is the
inadequate veterinary health services for
livestock and lack of adequate focus on the
genetic improvement. He observed that there is
absence of seriousness on National level Disease
Control Programs for Livestock in the country.
In this context, he suggested that focus should
be on disease prevention, effective, speedy and
87
 accessible diagnostic services (in migration also)
and training to community based para-vet
workers. There is also a need to promote
selective breeding policy. He felt that
encouraging women to spearhead selective
breeding helps in meeting the demand of rearers
for superior breeding rams/ bucks in the
village flocks. According to him, ram lamb
rearing is lucrative and hence can be facilitated
as part of livelihood options (for women who
have knowledge, skill and experience). He said
that ‘open nucleus policy’ can be adopted for
breeding. In this regard, Dr. Sreeramulu
explained about the economics of goat rearing
wherein 2-3 goats can give an income of
Rs 7000-8000 in a year. He observed that,
“... unfortunately these economics have not
caught the imagination of either the economists
or the development practitioners…”
Dr. Sreeramulu felt that there is also reduced
access to credit and insurance for livestock.
Linking individual rearers groups with
institutional credit and insurance is the need of
the hour. He suggested to link credit with
insurance for covering the risk of loss of
production and life. Short term credit facility is
to be extended to the small ruminant sector. He
felt that providing bank loans to establish
pastures and growing fodder tress on their lands
should be tried out. He also opined that
‘community insurance’ through SHG’s (rearer
groups) can be implemented where
compensation is paid to claimant from funds
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
generated out of the premium paid by the
members.
He said that lack of efficient marketing mecha-
nisms is impeding direct market access, lack of
market information and lack of prescribed
market standards and specifications are
impinging the growth of the livestock sector.
88
He suggested that efforts should be made for
pooling and dissemination of market
information and setting market standards and
specifications (by rearers, rearer organizations,
NGOs and Government bodies). There should
be strong lobbying on the government to
implement effective disease prevention and
eradication measures and also to open global
markets. He felt that sale of small ruminants on
the basis of body weight should be vigourously
promoted and rural abattoirs should be
facilitated for paying higher price to the rearers
and providing hygienic meat for the
consumers. He favoured establishing market
yards and facilitating rearers to go for direct
sale. According to him, efforts should also be
there for distribution to different markets,
negotiating for long term price and supply
contracts with market oriented production, bet-
ter processing, etc.
To address the issue of poor inter-
departmental coordination, he suggested
formation of inter-departmental committee of
key stakeholders for exploring the areas of
synergy. Inter-state coordination interventions
can be initiated where there is large migratory
population. These initiatives can be to set up
the norms of migration, fixing migratory routes,
codes of conduct, providing services during
migration etc. He felt that focused approach
can be achieved by setting active Small
Ruminant Cell in Animal Husbandry
Department. He called for evolving small
ruminant policy at state and national levels, to
be implemented through Department of
Animal Husbandry. He concluded by saying
that Public-Private partnership be explored for
forward and backward linkages like
procurement, distribution, marketing, supply of
inputs, feed, vaccination, disease control etc.
■
 Community Managed Development of
Small Ruminants – Redesigning of Support Systems
Dr. A.K. Joseph
Senior Programme Coordinator, CALPI
D r. Joseph primarily focused on the inherent
strengths and weaknesses of small ruminant
production and elaborated on the needed
support systems to better utilize the potential.
Dr. Joseph observed that the existence of a vast
number animals and diverse breeds are
providing major source of income and
employment for many households in the
country. According to him, small ruminants
are ‘Banks on hooves for the poor which insures
against income shocks’. For landless, it enables
private benefit out of public resources. Joseph
told that it is ‘a sector in the waiting for a
revolution and if not helped, it would evict the
poor towards city slums’.
Dr. Joseph presented elaborate data on the
economics of sheep and goat rearing. Data
regarding economics of sheep breeding (1999-
00) in states like Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan
and West Bengal showed that the net returns
(per ewe in a year) ranged from Rs 211 – 350
for land less and Rs 230-388 for marginal
farmers. The indicative earning per person/
day, including wage earning, ranged from
Rs 8 – 36 for land less and Rs 18 – 50 for
marginal farmers. Data regarding economics of
goat breeding (1999-00) in Andhra Pradesh
indicates that the net returns/doe/annum for
a flock of less than 5 is nearly Rs 395/- and it
was Rs 797/- for a flock of 15-30. Wages
realized per annum ranged from Rs 2548/- to
Rs 4480/- and the total net income per annum
was in between Rs 1576/- to Rs 15940/- for
flocks of 5 and 5-15, respectively. The lower
returns are mainly due to the smaller flock size,
the extensive system of rearing requiring high
labour input per animal and low yield per
animal and the flock.
Dr. Joseph pointed out that the per animal
return from small ruminant rearing has to be
improved drastically to become competitive
against other income options. And for the
income to grow, both the efficiency of
production and the scale of operations have to
be improved. He also presented data about the
trends in distribution of land and small
ruminants in the country. In 1999 - 2000, half
of the small ruminant holding house holds in
Andhra Pradesh had a flock size of < 5 Small
Ruminants and another 49 percent had flock
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
size of 5 – 15 Small Ruminants. The other
major states holding small ruminants like
Orissa, Maharashtra, and West Bengal also
showed similar trend. But most of these regions
reflect a vicious cycle of poverty trap. He cited
reasons for this disturbing trend that are:
dwindling feed availability, degradation of
CPRs, restrictions on grazing by JFMs and
watershed committees, lack of genetic up-
gradation of stock, poor access to services, low
89
 economy of scale, low net returns, poor returns
on labour, inefficient market access, increasing
non-farm employment options, growing wage
rates/opportunity cost of labour hardships of
rearers on migration etc. Goats and sheeps are
considered to be the animals of the poor. The
number of ovines per 100 households has
decreased over the years. This figure has shown
higher decreases with the landless families.
Small ruminants are now getting more and more
concentrated among marginal farmers.
Dr. Joseph pointed out that there is a growing
demand for meat across the world and
globalization has opened up the markets. But
there are also threats related to the effects on
environmental system and the poor being
evicted by the resource rich. He felt that these
factors are seriously urging for modernization
of the sector. According to him, this
modernization should be in a system in which
the production, procurement, processing (on
contract), marketing, productivity enhancement
are integrated under a structure owned and
controlled by the rearers and which ensures a
remunerative income and inclusive growth, with
economic and environmental sustainability as the
non-negotiables. He recommended formation
of a Producer Company with the stake of Rearer
SHGs. He said that it should steer the business
and it can enter into partnership with private
processors.
Dr. Joseph explained the support systems
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
needed at various levels: the producer company,
private processor, SHGs and the rearers. All the
services available with existing institutions
should be accessed. At the Producer Company
level, support is needed for planning,
contracting, scheduling, coordination of inputs,
services and extension, market research and
advise, feed production /contract, credit and
insurance etc. There should be genetic
improvement of breeds. For SHGs, support is
90
needed in terms of facilitation of technical
inputs (supplementary feeding, vaccination,
de-worming, and management of CPR),
production and rotation of breeding males,
extension (facilitation), marketing and credit /
insurance. And support for rearers is required
in productive rearing, feeding, breeding, health,
management, credit/insurance, participation in
SHGs etc.
He further elaborated on the support systems
needed in the scale of operations, marketing,
health, breeding, extension, feeding, credit etc.
He said that it is economically viable for a rearer
when he/she owns > 12 small ruminants with
at least 1 male. According to him, each SHG/
CIG should cover > 12 rearers and 150 small
ruminants. In marketing, he felt that, the
Producer Company should take care of market
research and dissemination. It should have
patronage voting with deterrents for the rich
from taking over control of the company. Live
animal sales and export should also be taken
care of by the company in partnership with the
private processor. Support systems for
vaccination; de-worming and emergency
control and village level workers should be made
available. With regard to animal breeding, the
Producer Company has to plan production,
distribution/ rotation of superior males based
on field recording. Contract production of males
should be arranged through rearers / user
SHGs. Males should be distributed on cost by
availing government subsidies. Breeding and
feed improvement should go together. It should
own/ contract out a feed plant. Feed
supplements should be supplied on cost basis.
Producer company should also take care of
arranging extension, training, exposure and it
should also encourage farmer to farmer
extension. Thrift should be encouraged among
SHGs and credit needs should be met through
banks and SHGs.
While emphasizing the need for development
of CPRs for fodder production, Joseph outlined
certain critical issues in this regard.
Encroachment, distribution for non-agricultural
purposes, privatization, over-stocking,
overgrazing, degradation, low community
participation, poor interagency coordination
were some of the issues outlined. He stressed
on the need for the community participation in
Lead Discussion
'Economic' Value in Pastoral System
S hri Gopi Krishna (Jana Jagaran) made a
presentation about community managed
development of small ruminants and
pastoralism in rainfed areas. At the outset, he
explained about the relationship of rainfed
cropping system with atmospheric conditions
and symbiotic relationship between soil, animal
and plants. Then he presented an experience of
small ruminant holders (Kurbas, Dhanghar,
Gollas, Lamanis, Bedars, etc) pastoral system
in Deccan Plateau. In North Karnataka,
pastoralism among sheep and goat rearers
(Kurbas and Gollas) was visible in nomadic, semi
nomadic and stationary forms. Whereas cattle
and buffalo rearers (Gawalis and Lambanis)
were mostly semi nomadic and stationary. A
person with a flock of 100-150 sheep lead the
migration with the help of 4-5 people. 8-10 such
CPRs development. Appropriate social norms
need to be developed. NGOs can facilitate this
process by building capacities and providing
technical back up. Government can extend
support by allocating CPRs, providing usufruct
and management rights to user groups/
community. It should also provide initial
financial support and inter departmental
convergence. ■
flocks would comprise one herd which consists
of 850-1200 sheep. They go for migration to an
extent of 15-25 sq km radius. Major migration
heads include Chikodi, Mudhol, Haveri,
Ramdurg, Halyal, Mundgod, Koppal,
Gangavati, Kappad Guda, Hospet, Shikaripur
and Almatti. This is highly evolved robust
pastoral system in terms of herd management,
grazing, adhoc networking, housing, breeding,
nutrition and marketing. This system also has
its economic value. Traditionally farmers in the
rainfed areas would pay Rs 120-250 for
penning, in kind. One flock in one night
approximately contributes 42 Kilos of
concentrated dung plus 20 Kgs of Urine.
Income also accrues through stubble grazing,
lopping and sale of lambs.
Major issues and concerns noticed in the
system were related to diseases and epidemics.
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Stating that we have failed in the breeding
programme, he said that we have inherited the
exotic diseases like blue tongue and PPR.
Absence of CPRs and grazing lands, pesticide
residues, availability of water etc. are the other
concerns that are negatively influcening the
rearing of small ruminants. He said that there
are many cooperatives of the shepherds, but they
have been dominated by political and vested
91
 interests. Value addition related interevetnions
were also not effective and are not working
(particularly wool related industries).
Jana Jagaran made some interventions with
regard to: organizing shepherds at migration
head level, forming women SHGs, training
barefoot vets, providing basic health services,
Need for Applied Research
S hri Shailendra Tiwari (Seva Mandir) opined
that the issue of CPRs in relation to small
ruminants is a complex one. He said that there
is ‘inherent exclusion’ of people dependent on
small ruminants even in the process of
protection of CPR and related institutional
arrangements. The situation is that these small
ruminant holders are being forced to leave their
animals due the pressure of ‘dominant
Open Discussion
S hri Abdul Karim (RDT) questioned whether
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
any contradiction is there in stating that goat is
not harmful in the backdrop of earlier
government in Andhra Pradesh restricting goat
rearing. He also enquired about the economic
feasibility of goat rearing by women and asked
for research backup. He wanted to know
whether the shift from the Deccani breed to
Nellore breed is desirable. Stating that meat
seems to be dominating philosophy of goat and
92
supporting value addition by SHGs and
creating markets for them. They are
documenting ethno-veterinary practices and are
involved in manufacturing bags with skin and
wool of black goats; better use of wool; related
trainings, felting etc.
■
communities’ in certain areas. While sharing the
experiences of Seva Mandir related to CPRs, he
mentioned that the degradation of CPRs could
be reversible and this does not require fancy
policy changes, but effective institutional
arrangements. The biomass generation process
requires considerable protection arrangements
and the rearers of small ruminants have to face
hardships in this process (e.g.: selling small
ruminants or shifting to other types of animals).
It is important to develop appropriate partner-
ships in conducting ‘applied research’ on issues
related to small ruminants and their problems
(e.g.: species of grazing etc). There was also a
concern about shrinking grazing land in
Rajasthan and also on the issue that the state
government is providing large chunk of CPRs
to private companies for Bio Fuel plantation,
such as jatropha. ■
sheep, he queried whether alternative products
like cheese can also be produced from these
animals. He also said that the main problem
seem to be availability of fodder and sought to
know answers for these problems.
Dr. Sreeramulu clarified that the government
of Andhra Pradesh never officially banned
goats. He accepted that the Department of
Animal Husbandry did a mistake by
introducing cross breeding of Nellore and
Deccani breeds. On CPRs being assigned to
private companies, he responded saying that
the present workshop can strongly make
necessary recommendations in this regard as
growing jatrofa has serious implications on
small ruminants. Welcoming the value added
products from goat milk he said that these are
very local initiatives, as generally goat milk is
just sufficient to its kids.
On goat rearing activity by women SHGs,
Dr. Joseph emphatically said that there are
number of examples in which SHGs reared
goats/ sheep, with technical support of
facilitating agencies on health and animal
husbandry related issues. Stall feeding of small
ruminants is feasible, but economically not
viable. Grazing and supplementary feed is an
important option. Joseph stated that while meat
focus is a reality, other products (dung and
urine) also deserve attention.
The session concluded with the chairperson’s
remarks on the continuing critical role of goats
and sheep in the rainfed areas.
■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
93
 New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

94
 SESSION - V
Group Work on Selected Themes
Dr. Sanghi and Shri M.V Ramachandrudu
facilitated the session. Four themes related to
rainfed farming that were identified for group
discussion are; (i) Agriculture in Rainfed Areas –
Soil fertility, Pest Management and seeds,
(ii) Water for Rainfed Areas, (iii) Re-looking at
Livestock in Rainfed Areas and (iv) Institutions and
credits for Rainfed Areas development.
Accordingly, participants were organized into
4 groups and following facilitators were
identified for these groups: (i) Dr. B.
Venkateswarlu, (ii) Dr. K.J. Joy, (iii) Dr. V.
Padma Kumar and (iv) Dr. Amita Shah. A
specific theme was assigned for each group for
discussion. The details of the group
composition are given in Annexure – 3.
The focus of the groups on discussing
respective themes should be on: (i) looking at
specific requirements of rainfed areas –
especially in the context of the rainfed farming
systems; (ii) identifying the priority areas for
action in rainfed areas, (iii) needed support/
systems and the successful experiences to
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
illustrate such priorities; and (iv) suggesting the
needed macro perspectives/ guiding principles
and public support system to drive the desired
change and providing insights for
implementation.
The groups worked separately and came to the
plenary session for presentation of their
discussions and recommendations on the
respective themes. ■
95
 New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

96
 PLENARY SESSION
Presentations and Highlights of Group Work
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Chairperson
Dr.Y.S. Ramakrishna, Director, CRIDA
Co-chairperson
Dr. C. Shambu Prasad, Associate Professor, XIM
Rapporteur
Shri N.L. Narsimha Reddy, CEO, PLF
97
 Theme – 1
‘Agriculture in Rainfed Areas - Soil - Pest Management’
D r. B. Venkateswarlu initiated the group
discussion, which covered aspects like: shift in
research focus, farming systems and cropping
systems, measures for augmenting soil moisture,
enhancing soil health, small farm
mechanization, pest management, seed systems
and using the provisions of existing schemes.
The Group felt that the focus should be on
ensuring livelihood security rather than
technology generation alone and land
productivity rather than crop productivity.
Efforts are needed to evolve required inclusion
strategies for landless. Farming systems
approach need to be followed covering fodder,
fuel, medicinal and other multiple uses. Multi
purpose trees useful for pest management and
soil health (neem, glyricidia, karanj etc) need to
be promoted in common lands. Land use should
ensure a proper balance between crop and non
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
crop areas in order to augment soil moisture
and conserve soil. Incentives need to be
extended for activities related to moisture
conservation. Appropriate tools and
implements for efficient tillage/management
need to be developed. Interventions with
multiple benefits should be promoted.
The group recommended strong measures for
improving soil health in rainfed areas. It was
98
felt that there is a need to redefine conservation
agriculture for Indian context so that it suits the
small holders. Incentives need to be extended
for biomass generation and incorporation for
nutrient management into the soil. The NREGS
may be used for such interventions. These
nutrient based subsidies should be given directly
to farmers irrespective of the form of nutrients.
Incentives also need to be built up for
management of problematic soils like acidic,
alkaline, saline and with poor drainage. There
should be incentives to oil cakes, manures and
bio fertilizers.
Emphasis should be on local resource
utilization (tank silt etc) with the help of
communities and matching incentives need to
be provided. The native earthworm activity may
be enhanced by increasing organic matter
through mulching. Appropriate composting
mechanisms, biogas and enriched composting
need to be promoted with proper incentives.
There should be incentives for off season cover
cropping and biomass banks with ‘legumes’.
Benefits of organic matter addition (with
measure like in situ composting etc) in terms of
carbon credits need to be validated and
documented.
Research focus should be on rediscovering the
value of soil organisms and necessary
investments should be allocated for this. It
should also focus on technical elements
(exploring the science behind) and financial
aspects of strengthening indigenous organic
products in relation to soil health. The
measures for increasing soil productivity with
home made organic preparations (like
panchagavya, jeevamrut, cattle urine, etc.) need
to be scientifically validated and promoted.
Efforts should be made for integrated use of all be extended in a regenerative mode to groups
available resources, exploring opportunities of rather than to individuals. Custom hiring
carbon sequestration and carbon trading. centres with local enterprises need to be pro-
Mechanisms for supply of seed/ plant material moted for delivering inputs and services.
to meet the biomass requirements of soil
On seed systems, the group emphasized on self
fertility need to be evolved.
reliance in seed as an overarching goal to drive
For small farm mechanization, custom hiring the policy; and seed diversity need to be
centres for implements need to be established. recognized as a tool for sustainable agriculture.
Implements need to be redesigned to suit to small It was suggested to evolve seed storage
holders and implements, which can improve technology /seed banks in the local situation.
efficiency and reduce drudgery for labor. Local processing in value addition need to be
Efforts should be made towards mechanization encouraged. Village level seed bank should be
for mixed/inter-cropping and incorporation of promoted by removing all hindrances in the
biomass. process. Subsidy should be given for informal
seed exchange so as to institutionalize the
With regard to Pest Management, it was felt
village level seed bank with CBO as a base. It
that Agro Eco System based Pest and Disease
was also felt that the quality control need to be
Management should be the approach. Subsidies
institutionalized at community level. The
need to be given for a ‘practice’ rather than for
presentation concluded with suggestions to
an ‘input’. Efforts should be made to rediscover
review the existing schemes/programs so as to
the value of cultural practices and validate
make use of the required provisions for
indigenous knowledge. Focus should be on
operationalizing the above activities.
capacity building for pest surveillance and
■
identification. Subsidy/revolving fund should
Theme – 2
'Water for Rainfed Areas'
D r. K.J. Joy made this presentation on behalf
of the Group. It emphasized on recognizing
water as a ‘key resource’ for dryland farming.
As it is required for both agriculture and non
agriculture livelihoods, it was suggested to

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

‘ensure basic minimum water to all households’.
Group also stressed on prioritization of water
for drinking (human and cattle), for other
household uses and for livelihood options.
Group felt that watershed based integrated
approach is the key in the rainfed areas and be on developing soil moisture and critical
focus should be on milli watershed, integrating irrigation (applied water). Group suggested that
it with existing tanks and other water bodies each household need to be provided with
(minor irrigation, ponds etc). Emphasis should critical irrigation atleast for one hectare of area.
99
 Allocations/ entitlements and provision of this
water should be part of watershed programmes.
Land Use planning and appropriate cropping
pattern which includes water efficient crops
should be promoted. Support should be
extended for interventions like farm ponds,
usage of treadle pumps etc.
The group dwelt in depth about the issues of
incentives and policies. It suggested promoting
appropriate cropping pattern, to be ensured
through CBOs and PRIs. State should ensure
higher support prices for these crops. While
emphasizing on conditionality of non water
intensive crops, extending input subsidy for
such crops was suggested. Subsidy for water
saving technologies should be tied to making
the saved water available (for people who do
not have access to water). Non water sector
incentives (for e.g. rationed electricity but
dependable and assured) can be tried out. It was
suggested that subsidies should be given to
groups and collectives, to the objective/
function but not to specific technology. Efforts
should be made for required knowledge base,
capacity enhancement of the community and
Theme – 3
'Re-looking Livestock in Rainfed Areas'
D r. V. Padma Kumar made this presentation
on behalf the Group. Group observed that
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
100
local delivery machinery. Better marketing
facilities and terms for produce need to be
evolved. It should be the responsibility of the
state to create infrastructure (processing,
storage etc) with operation and maintenance
taken over by local communities.
On governance issues, the Group felt that the
first step should be to provide primacy to the
decentralized local governance. State should
play supportive role through enabling policy
structure and legal provisions in the process of
empowering local communities. Efforts should
be put on for resource literacy, water
balancing, water budgeting that leads towards
informed decision making; social auditing.
Commercial use of water should not be allowed
unless ‘water security for all’ is met. Water
Users Associations constituting all households
should be identified as decision making body
for water use and these should work under the
framework of Panchayat Raj Institutions. Land
and water relations should be relooked in the
context of Easement Act, Parikh Committee
report, Experts report on Ground Water, etc.
■
higher the aridity more is the number of
livestock and greater livelihood contribution.
Grazing based animal husbandry is the
dominant livestock production system in the
drylands. It contributes for livelihoods of
asset-less poor; facilitates reclamation of dry
lands, ensures biodiversity, increases efficiency
in resource use and reduce risks against climatic
variability. However, in the larger scheme of
development policies which follow ‘static
development model’, this production system has
been sidelined.
Focusing on the characteristics of livestock in
rainfed farming system, the Group felt that it is
‘a dynamic resource dependent resilient system
that responds to variabilities (sedentary to
nomadic and vice versa, similarly, large
ruminants to small ruminants and back)’.
Predominantly dependent on common property
resources, it buffers agricultural vulnerability,
but itself is highly vulnerable. It enables
efficient use of resources (e.g. water use
efficiency is high if crops and livestock are
integrated) and contributes to soil health
through nutrient recycling. It also functions as
an adaptation and coping instrument to reduce
shocks and vulnerabilities.
The Group recommended for developing a ‘dry
land livestock perspective’ and its integration
into the mainstream development agenda. It
was felt that it should have its own character,
and not replicate mainstream models, as it
addresses totally different agro-ecological
landscape. The Group suggested to go beyond
sectoral approach as the issues cut-across
different sectors. The new perspective should
look at livestock as: contributors of livelihoods in
precarious environment, contributors of ecological
services, coping instruments against vulnerability
and contributors in niche markets.
The group felt that the priority area is to
develop appropriate support systems
(including institutional mechanism) that cater
to the needs of rainfed landscape. Specific
requirements are: developing grazing/common
land with public, private and community
participation and its effective management;
providing needed investments for technical
innovations (feed/ fodder banks, local abattoirs,
etc.); enabling health services on migration
route, facilitating intra and inter state
migration; strengthening relation with
agriculturists, particularly in states like Punjab
and Rajasthan; enhancing complementarities;
creating market access (niche and bigger
market); providing infrastructural and
technical support and insurance.
On policy requirements and guiding principles
from a macro-perspective, the Group felt the
need for looking at from regional dimension and
draw common elements at national level. There
should be emphasis on disease eradication in
dry lands and space for community based
organisations in delivering preventive health
services. Breeding policy appropriate to the
system should be evolved. Research has shown
that improvement in genotype and potential for
productivity growth is less significant in harsh
environments. Livestock development in less
endowed regions has its limitations. The Group
also emphasized that the need is to go beyond
sectoral approaches with regard to investments
and administration. It was suggested that these
should be allocated and administered for the
system as a whole and not for specific
components.
The Group presented some possible
interventions, which will make improvements
in the livestock based livelihood system in dry
lands. These are: empowering communities,
providing access right for grazing, growing
fodder trees in CPRs, enabling community
participated genetic improvement, creating
health services (including ethno veterinary
practices), providing higher investment,
supporting marketing for organic milk/ meat
and payment for ecosystem services (manuring
dry lands, maintaining biodiversity, etc.). It was
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
also emphasized to see whether these are
enough to move from subsistence to a higher
degree of prosperity and any other
innovations are needed for a breakthrough. If
intensive production (with backward-forward
linkages) is planned, one should look at the
sustainability principles. The presentation ended
with a quote “… Twenty years from now, you
will be more disappointed by the things you
didn’t do than by the ones you did…” ■
101
 Theme – 4
Institutions and Credit for Rainfed Areas Development
D r. Amita Shah made this presentation on
behalf of the group. It was felt that the focus
should be on institutions which cater to
various requirements of farming system in
rainfed areas. These institutions should reassert
their role to suit the requirement of these areas
having high variability. They should be context
specific, knowledge based and distinctly
involving concerned people. Area based
approach rather than individual farmer based
approach should be in place. It was further
country. There should be institutions that are
emphasized that ‘the institutions are essential
‘people centric’, ‘participatory’, ‘location and
catalysts of development process’ and the need
context specific’ and ‘knowledge based’. They
is to re-strengthen them with a ‘purpose to make
should specifically address the concerns
them more broad based and flexible so that they
relating to ‘poverty’ and ‘women’.
can address the needs of rainfed areas. It was
suggested to make an inventory of ‘creative and Group also felt that there was no need for
innovative’ institutions in the country, more ‘many’, ‘new’ institutions but it is required to
specifically for the rainfed areas. restrengthen the existing institutions and
cooperative system at micro level. It made
The Group felt that the ‘pre existing constraints’
references of models like Mutually Aided
led to market and state failures in delivering the
Cooperative Societies in Andhra Pradesh and
needs, mostly concerned to the rainfed areas. It
Cooperative Movement in Maharashtra. The
underlies the significance of the institution as a
need is to make ‘more broad based functional
‘precondition’ and ‘precursor’ to any
frame work of mechanisms to survive and
development process and investment in them
deliver’. Group also stressed on the need to
is an essential prerequisite. It was also felt that
promote ‘para statal’ institutions like Indira
there is ‘huge amount of energy and wealth’ in
Kranthi Patham (IKP) in Andhra Pradesh.
the existing institutions, covering both
government and outside and that needs to be On supply of credit line, Group felt that rainfed
utilized efficiently and effectively. areas are ‘under funded’ and that there is need
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

for setting up of institutions which can

The group suggested following measures while
facilitate good flow of ‘blood’ (credit) into the
building new or strengthening existing
‘veins’ of rainfed areas. There is no dearth of
institutions. There is a need to ‘reassert the
credit but the issue lies in its ‘effective delivery’.
accountability’ at policy, institutional and
This could be due to system related constraints
service delivery levels. There is also a need to
or knowledge lacunae or both. It was suggested
conceptualize a new framework for the
to build the capacities in the system to address
institutions which can address all the issues and
the inbuilt gaps.
concerns right from policy to micro level. It is
also essential to create a system which accounts There is a need for special allocation of funds
for ‘multi functionality’ of agriculture in the for rainfed areas. NABARD could take specific
102
role as an institution for rainfed agriculture and
reflect its priority. It can facilitate evolution of
appropriate institutions and credit instruments
at different levels. Thus the need to work more
closely with NABARD was stressed. It is a fact
that credit flow is successful and productive
only when there is backup with required
‘technology’. The lesson is that there is a need
to evolve ‘new technologies’ rather than
working with green revolution technology.
Investments need to be made for evolving such
technologies, not only at microscopic but also
at higher levels.
It was felt that multiple models of institutions
can exist with appropriate back up technology
and credit support. Suitable laws for making
‘joint responsibility’ (of men and women) should
be evolved in creating systems. It was also
explored whether ‘family SHGs’ are an option
that can be tried out. The whole functioning of
Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs), which are
already on public domain, need to be revisited
and efforts should be there to make their focus
on rainfed areas.
The Group provided broad principles and
guidelines for evolving appropriate institutions.
These are in terms of: efficacy in delivery,
sustainability and alternative to CBOs. A
structure of ‘multi layered’ institutions for
rainfed areas could be evolved. The role of
institutions was also broadly suggested in terms
of value addition, marketing and credit efficiency.
Open Discussion
I nitiating the discussion Shri Achyut Das
observed that attention should be on ‘political
economy’ particularly when the issues related
to rainfed farming are in consideration. There
is a need to focus on issues like displacement,
mining etc. He observed that though livelihoods
are important, focus should be on providing
‘food security’. Appropriate institutions need to
To supplement this presentation, Dr. N.K.
Sanghi presented an alternative institutional
set-up that is suitable for rainfed areas. He said
that enabling institutions at different levels are
crucial for meeting diversified needs of these
areas with decentralized decision-making and
systems approach. It is clearly evident that
sustainable CBOs are becoming a nucleus of
entire developmental process in rainfed areas.
Though women SHGs have shown promising
results so far in upscaling alternative
experiences, it was felt that there is however a
need to look beyond these SHGs. The identified
needs and concerns of alternative institutional
mechanism were: proximity of the institutions
to the community, federating SHGs at different
levels, registration of above federations under
enabling law (e.g. MACS, Producers Company,
etc), evolving mechanism to involve men into
the groups (e.g. CIGs, family SHGs, RMGs,
modified farmers club), emergence of para statal
organization besides CBOs (e.g. IKP) and
governance mechanism for functioning of
CBOs. It was also felt that institutional
mechanism for sustainable development as well
as utilization of CPR is crucial through social
regulation and enabling policies. It was
suggested that an efficient accounting system
should be evolved for micro-level situation (e.g.
village) for participatory development of rainfed
areas.
■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
be evolved for providing back up to attain self
sufficiency in rainfed villages. Shri Ravindra
raised a concern that more issues are being left
to the ‘farmer’s domain’ and it is wrong to
assume that they should invest more on
agriculture and water related interventions. In
this regard, he referred about the urban
plantation program where there was large push
103
 and investment by the government. He ques- them. He also stressed on the need to create
tioned why there is apathy in addressing the ‘market pull’ for millets so that the companies
issues related to farmers. He also questioned in food market can utilize this produce from
about the thinking that the SHGs should run rainfed areas. Dr. Preeti Kumar felt that the
on their own. He remarked that “…this ‘variability’ issues of rainfed areas could be
‘mythical notion’ is killing many SHGs. There is addressed by effective ‘district level planning’.
no machine with perpetual motion! There This could be a vehicle for bringing climate
should be a supportive and facilitative variability in the agricultural systems. Shri Gopi
mechanism…” Krishna suggested moving away from ‘biotic
consumption’ in rainfed areas. Dr. B.
He stressed on the need to create market
Venkateswarlu suggested not to loose sight of
demand for ‘millets’ and strongly objected to
consumers in the whole paradigm. The
the contention that there is no demand for them.
question is whether to ‘produce to consume’ or
“… How much demand existed for paddy in
‘consume to produce’. Mr. H. Lanting
1970’s and how intensive were the efforts to
wondered if the government can invest on
create demand for it? … If investments are
providing critical irrigation for the farmers in
made, demand for milltes would be there… “.
rainfed areas. He felt that investment on
He agreed with the contention that ‘food is a
infrastructure is financially unviable; instead
media construct and also a construct of ‘public
community could be provided for support in
support system’.
value addition and marketing of the produce.
Shri Ashok Bang suggested for ‘remunerative
minimum support prices’ for rainfed crops, and
procurement price to be on par with minimum
support price. He said that the Government is
loosing 66 percent of money through PDS as it
is spending Rs 3.50 for extending one rupee
worth benefit to end user. It is essential that
food and nutrition should be on the prime
agenda and those who are taking care of their
own ‘food needs’, should also be given
Co-chairperson Dr. Shambu Prasad reflected on
subsidies.
the rationality of searching for the new
Dr. Ramanjaneyulu suggested the need to paradigm for rainfed areas. The need is to see
re-look at the way how the things are through new lessons by opening up the
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

understood and parameters taken for
consideration in the process. Several alternative
experiments are there. The need is to validate
the protocols and understand the change.
Shri Surya Kumar suggested providing constant
support for the rainfed areas. He observed that
while talking about CBOs, it should be
understood that there are costs involved in
developing, strengthening and supporting
104
thinking process, with new type of questions
through a meaningful dialogue. This would
address the issues and concerns of rainfed
areas. For institutional change, it is required for
all concerned to think and behave differently.
He suggested to explore the efficient
accountability system needed for these areas.
A knowledge dialogue across scientists,
researchers, policy makers and NGOs is
essential to move forward. Research paradigm
has to focus on new insights on issues relating
to exploring validity norms for innovative ex-
periences and addressing issues like farmers sui-
cides etc.
Chairperson Dr. Ramakrishna observed that
issue of critical irrigation is an issue related to
‘equity’. He also felt that no external support is
needed for infrastructure as CBOs are getting
support from other sources towards such
interventions. He stressed on the need to
provide required electricity to the rainfed
farmers and efforts should be there for
evolving locally feasible systems, e.g. power
generation through biomass.
Shri M.V.Ramachandrudu observed that there
is no need for biomass based energy
production; the need is to evolve efficient
distribution of power supply for both domestic
and agricultural purposes. In this regard, he
referred to the experience of ‘Jyotigram’ in
Gujarat, where there was assured supply of 7
hours of power to farmers with making the
distribution system more effective. He remarked
that there are lessons and experiences that could
be given space while defining the policy for
rainfed areas. The role of government, research
establishment, NGOs and CBOs is critical and
proper institutional changes are needed to
redesign the process.
■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
105
106
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
 CONCLUDING SESSION
Chairperson
Shri T. Vijay Kumar, CEO, SERP

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Co-chairperson(s)
Shri S.N.A. Jinnah, General Manager, NABARD
Ms. Priti Kumar, Environment Specialist, WORLD BANK
Rapporteur
Dr. Ch. Radhika Rani, Programme Director, NIRD
107
 A New Paradigm: What is Emerging?
Shri A. Ravindra
Director, WASSAN
S hri Ravindra tried to recapitulate the
background of the workshop and initial
thinking on scope of the discussions. It all
started with a search for re-looking at the
rainfed system separately, distinct from
mainstream agricultural policy and larger
purview of issues. The discussions have
established that there is convergent thinking
and that these systems are different, with lot of
inherent variations. What we have so far is an
extension of a ‘high input intensive technology’
as a centrality of ‘production’ and a low-
equilibrium sustainable agriculture/ organic
farming. The result is reflected in the
heightened farmers’ distress, increasing fallows
and abandoning farming. It is also visible in
large scale degradation of natural resources
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
resulting in higher inputs, energy costs,
burdening national economy, etc.
The positive side of the proceedings reflects that
there is hope from the emerging experiences
across the country. A promise is also coming
upfront for the rainfed areas; that growth rate in
income is possible; that there is scope for growth in
108
production system and there is implicit potential
for employment generation that can be enhanced
substantially, if there is focus in terms of putting
efforts and investments in these areas. There are
experiences emerging across the country which
are validated by the scientific establishment.
The emerging experiences are emphasizing on
‘re-focus’ on these areas in terms of: identifying
water as a ‘key’ resource in rainfed farming
systems; making a shift towards moisture
centricity and critical irrigation in water
policies; improving soil health through
increasing soil organic matter and microbial
activity; integrating rainfed livestock systems
(stationary to pastoral) into the farming system
and evolving decentralized community based
institutional base.
Shri Ravindra provided the needed dimensions
for the desired ‘re-focus’ on the rainfed
farming system. The experiences clearly
demonstrated that incremental and component
changes will not do. What is required is
paradigm change in approaches and
appropriate investments in right place. Support
systems and incentives for adopting healthy
practices are required. There is also a need to
‘re-prioritize research’ and allocate required
investments for institutions. He concluded by
saying that ‘the element of framework is there
but building administrable operational
mechanism’ is a challenge in the process of
developing rainfed areas.
■
 Need to Link Macro Indicators with Micro
Imperatives
Dr. Amita Shah
Professor, GIDR
A t the outset, Dr.Shah called for defining a
broad, holistic framework for the development
of rainfed areas, ‘with linking macro economic
indicators to micro economic imperatives’. It
should be done while the process of
deliberations comes to an end. This is an
urgent need as it is a concern about large
section of people which is the backbone of
‘micro economic growth’ of the country.
Dr. Shah elaborated on economic policy
framework that is being in operation till today, consumers and if price is reduced, the burden
which is based on certain key indicators. shifts on to the farmers and they loose in the
Agricultural growth rate is still taking process. With regard to budgetary allocation,
prominence in overall economic growth rate, she suggested for the need to focus on
even though contributing just 22 percent of GDP ‘prioritization’ and felt that other ‘unkind’
in the country. As in the words of a mainstream budgetary allocations are the compulsions of
economist, though the ‘World Bank or macro economic process. Participation in WTO
Washington based lobby’ is powerfully has certainly effected the domestic subsidies.
functioning, agricultural growth rate is still the “… If we play our cards properly, there would
single most factor in guiding the rural economy be some incremental benefits, particularly for
in the country. She said that the green rainfed areas...”, she opined.
revolution has given some positive results,
Dr. Shah observed that it is unfortunate that
certainly one is poverty reduction, but that can
the employment generation in the country is
be undermined due to the ecological disaster it
linked to political stability and vote politics of
caused in the process. Food Security and
the democratic society. Even the creation of
aggregate supply of essential food commodities

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

are the critical strategic factors in the
agricultural growth. She made it clear that the
consideration of food security at present is not
at ‘household level’ but it is the aggregate
supply of food at the national level.
On inflation, she took reference of Prof. Abhijit
Sen’s contention that pricing of agricultural
production related outputs is a ‘double edged
weapon’. If price increases, the burden is on the
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
is a political decision at one hand, but she said
that it can also be seen as an outcome of the
neglect of rainfed areas at the other end. She
felt that Food for Work and Employment
Guarantee Schemes have helped but it is ‘at a
huge cost of public investment’. It was in this
context in which we are talking about the
rainfed areas. Most of the concerns related to
this areas are neglected, and if at all they are
109
 addressed, the proposals are derived to suit the
macro economic indicators. She observed that
rainfed areas can simultaneously meet the de-
mands of the economy but this is yet to come to
the fore because we have not yet done the
proper arithmetic. The problem is that most of
the economic calculations have not taken labour
intensive agriculture and rainfed areas concerns
into their cognizance.
Dr. Amita Shah suggested to infuse flow of
‘incremental capital’ in budgetary allocation for
the rainfed areas development and suggested
that the environmental regeneration should be
properly valued in economic terms. She also
quoted a recent World Bank report on Indian
Agriculture which has clearly mentioned that
the next round of growth in the country would
revolve around rainfed areas if we look at them
carefully. In the given context, this underlying
thinking of World Bank also implicitly reflects
the thinking process of the government.
How Do We Go Forward: Some Suggestions…
Dr. N.K. Sanghi
Advisor, WASSAN
D r. Sanghi summarized the deliberations with
respect to three aspects, namely (i) listing of
successful experiences, (ii) analysis of existing
macro level policies as well as developmental
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
110
Dr. Shah summarized her analysis by saying
that there clearly exists a high potential for
rainfed areas which incidentally reflects most
of the ‘poverty geography’ of the country.
Extension of green revolution package can be
an option in tapping this potential. As dry land
areas consist of various agro climatic conditions,
farming system approach is a viable option to
begin with while addressing the issues. It is also
clear that how this farming system approach is
different from agriculture. She said that the
country has deep rooted knowledge on which
type of farming system is relevant but what is
required at present is necessary action and the
investments to push the process. She called for
‘pooling up the proven experiences’ that can
lead a different kind of development framework
in the country and concluded by saying, “…let
us all be self critical and search for those proven
experiences, link them to macro economic
indicators by giving worth economic value, so
that they can guide the development process…”
■
schemes and (iii) exploring opportunity for
upscaling above experiences in the content of
XIth Five Year Plan. During the deliberations in
different sessions and group works, many
useful recommendations were made by
participants on each of these aspects which need
to be taken forward through follow up actions
at different levels.
Broadly speaking the following successful
experiences were shared during the workshop
namely (i) organic farming – with and without
price incentives, (ii) enhancement of organic
matter in the soil through biomass based in-situ
composting, (iii) management of pest through
non pesticidal methods, (iv) seed-bank of
improved varieties/hybrids released under
public sector, (v) social regulation against
overexploitation of groundwater,
(vi) decentralized food security through millets,
(vii) development of small ruminants through
community managed breed improvement,
diseases control and grazing in common land,
(viii) reforms in management of credit for
rainfed areas and (ix) initial upscaling of
successful experiences related to sustainable
agriculture through SHGs and their federations.
There is a need to go into further details about
the context, content and processes behind above
successful experiences and specific support
systems and incentives for upscaling them in
different areas need to be designed.
Critical analysis of existing policies was shared
with respect to micro-economic aspects namely
(i) price, (ii) trade, (iii) credit and (iv) risk
mitigation and also with respect to a few
developmental schemes namely (i) Integrated
Pest Management, (ii) Soil fertility management,
Observations from Funding and Support Agencies
S hri H. Lanting observed that the deliberations
are a good initiative in addressing the issues
related to rainfed areas. These have provided
an opportunity for the government, research
community and NGOs to learn the significance
of ‘attempts to influence each other’ as each of
these institutions do not know everything on
their own. But he felt that the issue of ‘drop
outs from agriculture, consisted mainly with
marginal farmers’ was not addressed in the
discussions. He also laid emphasis on
production of low cost agricultural equipment
that suits the rainfed areas.
Shri Bernhard Hoeper (German Agro Action)
felt that appropriate recommendations should
(iii) seed village, (iv) water resource
development and, (v) small ruminants
development. There is a need to carry out
further analysis of existing macro level policies
as well as developmental schemes in the light
of suggestions made in the workshop so that
required modifications in the guidelines could
be worked out.
Opportunities for large scale upscaling of
successful experiences in the context of XIth Five
Year Plan can be explored through the
following developmental schemes: (i) Rashtriya
Krishi Vikas Yojana, (ii) Watershed
development programme, (iii) Backward
Regions Grant Fund, (iv) National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme. The recent
initiatives by Government of India regarding
establishment of autonomous institutional
set-up at national level (i.e. National Rainfed
Area Authority) and facilitation of
decentralized planning through district level
plans (in 50 pilot districts) may be kept in view
while facilitating the above upscaling.
■
be made once there is clarity on where to focus.
He suggested that system approach is more opt
for rainfed farming but the need is to have more
cooperation and interaction between Research
Institutes, Academic Universities, Government
Departments, NGOs and Community based
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Organisations.
Dr. Sudip Mitra (MSSRF) observed that the
discussions centered around 4 key principles;
ecology, economy, equity and electricity. He said
that issues of social auditing and governance
are key concerns in development process,
particularly related to rainfed areas.
Dr. N.R. Jagannath (SDC) reflected that the
111
 deliberations have emphasized the need to
re-look at agriculture and water in the context
of increasing vulnerability. There is also need
for re-looking and redesigning support systems
at community level and unless we do that, it is
not possible to reach our goals.
Open Discussion
D r. Ramanjaneyulu observed that it was a
good participation with intense deliberations.
He pointed out that it is not only the rainfed
farming but entire agriculture is in crisis in the
country. Agriculture sector is becoming more
market centric and the crisis is an outcome of
that process. In this context there is a need to
look for new way of understanding the issues
and partnerships for new learnings.
Dr. Arun Balamatti described the workshop
themes as a ‘timely one’ in the context of
agricultural crisis across the country. He felt
that there is a need to look at what farmers are
doing across different places so as to take
lessons. There are experiences which provide
actionable suggestions for addressing issues (e.g.
ground water regulation) but it is surprising to
see why the government is shying away to
make necessary policies in that regard.
Shri PVS Surya Kumar suggested to pool up
knowledge and make aware such knowledge
to the concerned. Shri Ashok Bang sought for
giving same importance to micro economic
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
work as given to macro economic work.
Dr. Jagannath put forth certain critical
questions on parameters for deciding priorities,
the process of integrating the poor with the
marketing system to counter the inherent
barriers, developing low cost irrigation
technologies to increase water use efficiency and
making farmers understanding the value chain
in farming. Dr. Bandi Venkateswarlu felt that
112
Shri Ganesh Neelam (Sir Ratan Tata Trust)
hoped that the learnings from this workshop
would enlighten and sensitize all concerned in
building effective partnerships for addressing
the issues of rainfed areas.
■
most of the experiences shared in the workshop
are related to Andhra Pradesh, but there are
several experiences in states like Gujarat,
Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. He suggested
to have ‘traveling workshops across the
country’ to explore learnings from such areas.
Taking cue from a cartoon, Shri S.N.A. Jinnah
(NABARD) emphasized on the need to look at
farmers while addressing their issues rather
than imposing solutions from a different angle.
He opined that ‘sector distress operating with
social distress is leading to farmers suicides in
states like Andhra Pradesh’. He pointed out the
absence of representatives from farmers in the
deliberations. While suggesting for tapping the
potential of young generation in rainfed areas,
he observed that ‘solution for issues in these
areas lies in thinking out of box’. But the focus
should be on people and planet. On credit front,
he observed that ‘out reaching’ is different from
‘reaching out’, but the irony is that banks are
focusing on ‘out reaching’ for statistical
purposes which need to be re-looked. Stating
that information and knowledge management
are essential in the development process, he
appreciated the effort of WASSAN in
developing a website on ‘rainfed farming’. He
offered that NABARD would support such
information sharing initiatives. On the need for
supporting rainfed areas, Shri Jinnah indicated
that though Indian banks are doing business
worth Rs. 25 lakh crores, the amount invested
in rainfed areas is not more than Rs 20,000
crores. The paradox is that this is the
investment in areas where the bulk of the
population resides in the country. He opined
that government alone cannot invest the
required amount in these areas; the banking
sector has to fill some gap through effective
instruments and mechanisms. While disclosing
that a ‘bio carbon fund’ is in pipeline of
NABARD, he offered to finance the proposed
‘traveling workshops’ for capturing lessons
across the country.
Dr. Priti Kumar felt that the deliberations in the
workshop were productive and provided an
enriching experience on new insights. She
suggested that recommendations should focus
not only on policy at higher level but also on
operational mechanisms at micro level.
According to her, there should be ‘drivers of
change’ to do any thing on the ground. She also
emphasized on the need to influence the
convergence of departments at state level for
effectively steering the development process. She
made it clear that there is focus on agriculture
in World Bank agenda which is reflected in its
support to programs related to Watersheds,
Agro Forestry, Drought Adaptation Initiatives,
NAIP (National Agricultural Innovation
Project) etc. She felt that a significant challenge
lies ahead in bringing rainfed areas out of the
vicious cycle of complex issues.
In his concluding remarks, Chairperson
Shri T. Vijay Kumar complimented the
organizers and participants of the workshop for
the serious deliberations and felt that the
workshop went on with ‘strongly held beliefs’.
He suggested to talk to farmers rather than
policy makers for more effective results on the
ground. ‘Organization of hope farmers’ is a
necessity to steer that process as they have the
passion and energy, at the same time they don’t
require the support of any policy maker. He laid
emphasis on the institutional building with
‘institution of farmers.’ which should not be in
vacuum but around the people who are centre
to it. He suggested that these farmers should
be provided not ‘prescriptions’ but just ‘options’
to explore. If something works well, they will
move forward otherwise they will disappear.
He felt that convergence of line departments
with farmers is a necessity and should be in the
prime focus. “… Build a platform for such
convergence… Focus on how they (officials) talk
to farmers and help them in solving their
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
issues…” he suggested. While offering support
in Institution Buidling for initiatives in other
states, he strongly recommended for integration
of experiences across the states. In the process,
he felt that, there would be ‘millions of drivers
for change’. ■
113
 Vote of Thanks
necessary support in logistics. He profusely
thanked all the participants from different states
for their active participation in the deliberations
and making them more productive. The
collaboration with ICAR and CRIDA has clearly
demonstrated that the efforts towards a
paradigm shift is a common agenda. He
thanked the representatives from various
agricultural universities, research institutes,
Funding Organisations and NGO activists for
their facilitation and inputs during the
At the outset, Shri M.V. Ramachandrudu
discussion. He also thanked the Workshop
offered gratitude to Members of Planning
sponsors Ford Foundation, Oxfam, NABARD
Commission, Prof. Abhijit Sen and
and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. While stating that
Shri B.N. Yugandhar for their gracious presence
World Bank and NABARD have greater role
and guidance in deliberations. He thanked
and agenda for taking these deliberations
Dr. Mangal Rai, DG and Dr. Nawab Ali ADG,
forward, he thanked all concerned in making
ICAR for their inputs and suggestions. He
the workshop a productive consultation
offered acknowledgements for Dr. Gogoi and
process.
his team for making all participants
comfortable in the workshop by providing ■
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

114
 Annexure – 1
Schedule of Agenda
National Workshop
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming:
Redesigning Support Systems and Incentives
Date: September 27-29, 2007 Venue: NASC Campus, IARI, New Delhi
27th September (Thursday)
09:00 Hrs Registration of participants
INAUGURAL SESSION
09:30 Hrs ❑ Welcome & Introductory remarks Dr. Nawab Ali
DDG (NRM), ICAR
09:35 Hrs ❑ Address by Chief Guest: Dr. Mangal Rai,
In search of a new paradigm for self-reliant DG, ICAR
development of Rainfed Farming
09:50 Hrs ❑ Key note Address: Dr. V.S. Vyas
Policy reforms at national level for enhancing Professor Emeritus, IDS
inclusive growth in rainfed areas during XI Plan
10:10 Hrs ❑ Strategies for enhancing growth in Dr. Abhijit Sen
Agriculture during XI plan Member, Planning Commission

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

10:30 Hrs ❑ Vote of Thanks Shri M.V. Ramachandrudu
Director, WASSAN
10.35 Hrs ❑ Tea Break
SPECIAL SESSION
10:55 Hrs ❑ Sustainable development of Rainfed Areas Shri B.N. Yugandhar
Member, Planning Commission
11:15 Hrs ❑ Challenges before National Rainfed Area Authority Dr. J.S. Samra
in Revitalizing Rainfed Agriculture CEO, NRAA
11:35 Hrs ❑ Concluding remarks by the Chairperson
115
 SESSION – II: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SCENARIO IN RAINFED AREAS
Chairperson:
Dr. Rita Sharma
Financial Adviser (DARE & ICAR)
Co-chairperson: Dr. Devinder Sharma
Chairman, Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security
Rapportuer: Shri PVSS Surya Kumar
DGM, NABARD
11:45 Hrs ❑ Synthesis of innovative experiences for Dr. G.V. Ramanajeyulu
development of Rainfed Agriculture in Executive Director, CSA
the context of emerging crisis
12:15 Hrs ❑ Analysis of current Support Systems and Shri A. Ravindra
Incentives for Rainfed Farming and Need Director, WASSAN
for a Differentiated Approach
12:40 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 2-3 lead discussants)
13:25 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
13.45 Hrs Lunch break
Session – III: New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming
Chairperson: Dr. Ram Badan Singh
Member, National Commission on Farmers
Co-chairperson: Dr. S.P. Wani
Principal Scientist, ICRISAT
Rapportuer: Shri Sachin Oza
Executive Director, DSC
14:45 Hrs ❑ Decentralized Food Security in Rainfed Areas Shri P.V. Satheesh
involving different types of Millets and Pulses Director, DDS
15:15 Hrs ❑ Low external input based Sustainable Dr. Arun Balamatti
Agriculture (LEISA) – Synthesis of experiences Executive Director, AME
from India and abroad
15:45 Hrs ❑ Overview of field experiences with IPM and Shri W.R. Reddy
INM approaches Joint Secretary, MoA, GoI
16:15 Hrs Tea break
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

16:30 Hrs ❑ A New Paradigm for Rainfed Agriculture for Dr. S.P. Wani
Improving Livelihoods and Sustainable Principal Scientist, ICRISAT
Development in India
16:45 Hrs ❑ Organic Farming through various initiatives in
India – Synthesis of experiences and
strategy of their up-scaling
❋ From Impoverishment to Empowerment with Shri Ashok Bang
Productivity, Profitability and Sustainability for Director, AARC
Farmers and Farming
116
 ❋ Building a farmers owned company (Chetna) Shri H. Lanting
producing and trading fair trade-organic products CEO, ETC Consultants
17:30 Hrs ❑ Beyond Certified Organic Farming: Dr. N.K. Sanghi
An emerging paradigm for Rainfed Agriculture Advisor, WASSAN
17:50 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 2-3 lead discussants)
18:30 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
18:45 Hrs Close
28th September (Friday)
SESSION – IV: Critical support systems for upscaling successful experiences on 6 major themes
associated with rainfed farming (in two parallel sessions)
Theme – A: Pest Management through Non Pesticidal Methods (Parallel session – I)
Chairperson: Dr. V.L. Chopra
Planning Commission
Co-chairperson: Shri H. Lanting
CEO, ETC
Rapporteur: Shri G. Chandrasekhar
Program Manager, CSA
09:30 Hrs ❑ Pest management through non-pesticidal Dr. M.S. Chari
methods – a continuing journey Ex-Director, CTRI & CSA
10:00 Hrs ❑ Analysis of existing policies and programmes for Shri D.V. Raidu
pest management in agriculture – limitations Sr. Program Advisor (NPM),SERP
and opportunities
10:30 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 1-2 lead discussants)
11:15 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
11:30 Hrs Tea break
Theme – B: Seeds in the hands of the Community (Parallel session – I)
Chairperson: Shri S.L. Bhat
Add. Secretary, MoA, GoI
Co-chairperson: Dr. N.D. Jambhale
ADG (Seeds), ICAR
Rapporteur: Shri D.K.Routray

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

AGM, NABARD
11:45 Hrs ❑ Analysis of existing policies and programmes Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyulu
under seed sector – limitations and opportunities Executive Director, CSA
12:15 Hrs ❑ Community managed seed bank in rainfed Dr. K. Tirupataiah
areas – need for new mechanisms and Special Commissioner, CRD, AP
infrastructural support
12:45 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 1-2 lead discussants)
13:30 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
13:45 Hrs Lunch Break
117
 Theme – C: Enhancement of Organic Matter in Soils (Parallel session – II)
Chairperson: Dr. J.C. Katyal
Vice Chancellor, CCS HAU
Co-chairperson: Dr. Y.S. Ramakrishna
Director, CRIDA
Rapporteur: Dr. A.K. Sharma
Senior Scientist, CAZRI
09:30 Hrs ❑ Improving Soil Productivity through Enhancement of Dr. J. Venkateswarlu
Organic Matter in Soils Ex-Director, CAZRI
10:00 Hrs ❑ Enhancing Soil-Organic Matter in SAT- Scientific Dr. O.P. Rupela
evidence and policy support needed for scale-up Principal Scientist, ICRISAT
10:30 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 1-2 lead discussants)
11:15 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
11:30 Hrs Tea break
Theme – D: Separate Policy for Water Resource in Rainfed Areas (Parallel Session – II)
Chairperson: Shri Himanshu Thakkar
Coordinator, SANDRP
Co-chairperson: Shri K.J. Joy
Secretary, SOPPECOM
Rapporteur: Shri Shailender Tiwari
SEVA MANDIR
11:45 Hrs ❑ Analysis of Existing Support Systems for Water Dr. K.V. Rao
Resource Development in Rainfed and Senior Scientist, CRIDA
Irrigated Areas
12:15 Hrs ❑ Emerging Experiences on Sustainable Use of Shri S.K. Anwar
Water Resource in Rainfed Areas: Social Programme Coordinator, OXFAM
Regulations as an Approach; Field Experiences
12:45 hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 1-2 lead discussants)
13:30 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
13:45 Hrs Lunch Break
Theme – E: Self reliant development through Sustainable Community based Organizations and
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Reforms in Management of Institutional Credit (Plenary Session)

Chairperson: Dr. J. Venkateswarlu
Ex-Director, CAZRI
Co-chairperson: Prof. M.R. Sharma
Chief Consultant, NHM
Rapporteur: Dr. M.A. Shankar
Chief Scientist, Dryland Research Center, UAS
14:45 Hrs ❑ Sustainable development of Agriculture through Shri T. Vijay Kumar
SHGs and their Federations – A case study in CEO, SERP
Andhra Pradesh
118
15:15 Hrs ❑ Institutional credit for Rainfed Areas – Shri PVS Surya Kumar
Issues and Concerns DGM, NABARD
15:45 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 1-2 lead discussants)
16:30 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
16:45 Hrs Tea break
Theme – F: Self reliant development of Small Ruminants with Resource Poor Families
(Plenary Session)
Chairperson: Dr. Y.S. Ramakrishna
Director, CRIDA
Co-chairperson: Dr. Kamal Kishore
Wool Consultant
Rapporteur: Dr. V. Padma Kumar
Programme Officer, CALPI
17:00 Hrs ❑ Analysis of Existing Policies and Schemes for Dr. P. Sreeramulu
Development of Small Ruminants Ret. Addnl Director, AH Dept, GoAP
17:30 Hrs ❑ Community Managed Development of Small Dr. A.K. Joseph
Ruminants – Redesigning of Support Systems Programme Coordinator, CALPI
18:00 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 1-2 lead discussants)
18:30 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
18:45 hrs Close
29th September (Saturday)
SESSION – V: Group work on support systems and incentives with respect to each of the above
6 themes
09:30 Hrs Facilitators in four different groups:
(i) Dr. B. Venkateswarlu, Principal Scientist, CRIDA
(ii) Shri K.J. Joy, Senior Fellow, SOPPECOM
(iii) Dr. V. Padma Kumar, Programme Officer, CALPI, and
(iv) Dr. Amita Shah, Professor, IGDR
11:00 Hrs Tea break
SESSION – VI: Plenary session about highlights of group work
Chairperson: Dr. Y.S. Ramakrishna

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Director, CRIDA
Co-chairperson: Dr. C. Shambu Prasad
Associate Professor, XIM
Rapportuer: Shri N.L. Narasimha Reddy
CEO, PLF, Hyderabad
11:15 Hrs ❑ Presentation on group reports
❋ Sustainable agriculture in rainfed areas Dr. B. Venkateswarlu
including management of soils, pest and seeds
❋ Water for rainfed areas Dr. K.J. Joy
119
 ❋ Re-looking at Livestock in rainfed areas Dr. V. Padma Kumar
❋ Institutions for rainfed areas development Dr. Amita Shah
12:15 Hrs ❑ Open discussion (initiated by 2-3 lead discussants)
❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
13:15 Hrs Lunch break
SESSION – VII: Concluding session
Chairperson(s): Shri T. Vijay Kumar
CEO, Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP)
Co-chairperson: Shri S.N.A. Jinnah
GM, NABARD
Rapportuer: Ms. Priti Kumar
Environment Specialist, World Bank
Dr. Ch. Radhika Rani
Programme Director, NIRD
14:45 Hrs ❑ Introductory remarks - A New Paradigm: Shri A. Ravindra
What is emerging
14:55 Hrs ❑ A brief overview with Economic Perspective – Dr. Amita Shah
Need to link macro indicators with micro imperatives
15:05 Hrs ❑ How do we go forward – some suggestions Dr. N.K. Sanghi
15:20 Hrs ❑ Some observations from some of the funding
and support agencies
❋ ETC Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Shri H. Lanting
❋ German Agro Action Mr. Bernhard Hoeper
❋ MSSRF Dr. Sudip Mitra
❋ Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Dr. N.R. Jagannath
❋ Sir Ratan Tata Trust Shri Ganesh Neelam
15:45 Hrs ❑ Open discussion
16:30 Hrs ❑ Remarks by Chairperson and Co-chairperson
16:45 Hrs ❑ Vote of Thanks and Close Shri M.V. Rama Chandrudu
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

120
 Annexure - 2
List of Participants
6. Arul Swamy
Senior Programme Officer
1. Abdul Kareem, K OUTREACH
Head (Sustainable Agriculture) 109, Coles Road, Frazer Town
Accion Fraterna - RDT - Ecology Centre, Bangalore – 560 005
Upparapalle Road, Bangalore Highway, Tel. No. (080) 25307532
Ananthapur - 515 002 Mobile: 09448355699
Tel. No. (08584) 244222 / (85484) 246884 Email: arulswami@hotmail.com
Mobile: 09440547510 Website: www.outreachindia.org
Email: actionf@sancharnet.in
Website: www.accionfraterna.org 7. Arun Balamatti
Executive Director
2. Abhijit Sen AME Foundation
Member, No. 204, 100 Feet Ring Road,
Planning Commission 3rd Phase, Banashankari 2nd Block, 3rd
Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, Stage,
New Delhi – 110 001 Bangalore - 560 085
Tel. No. (011) 23096564 / 2309 6565 Tel. No. (080) 26699512 / 26699522
Email: abhijit.sen@nic.in Fax. No. (080) 26699410
Website: www.planningcommission.nic.in Mobile: 09448832186
E-mail: amebang@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in,
3. Achyut Das amefbang@amefound.org
Director, Website: www.amefound.org
AGRAGAMEE
Kashipur – 765 015 8. Arun Chandra, A
Rayagada District, Orissa Executive Director,
Tel. No. (06865) 285149 CHETNA ORGANIC
Fax. No. (0674) 2551130 12-2-416/34, 1st Floor, Mohan Nivas,
Mobile: 09437073588 Ushodaya Colony, Gudimalkapur
Email: achyutdas@agragamee.org Hyderabad – 500 028
Website: www.agragamee.org Tel. No. (040) 23511083
Res. No. (040) 65156022
4. Amita Shah Mobile: 09440626144
Professor, Fax. No. (040) 23520021
Gujarat Institute of Development Research Email: arunambi_ocgm@sify.com
(GIDR) Website: www.chetnaorganic.org.in
Gota Char Rasta,
Ahmedabad - 380 060 9. Arun K. Sharma
Tel. No. (02717) 242366 / 242367 Senior Scientist (Division of ILUM & FS)
Mobile: 09925061002 Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI)
Email: amitagidr@gmail.com Jodhpur - 342003,
Website: www.gidr.ac.in Rajasthan

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Tel. No. (0291) 2788789
5. Anwar Shaik Res. No. (0291) 2703547
Programme coordinator Fax. No. (0291) 2788706
Oxfam (India) Trust Mobile: 09414172436
Plot No. 18, Amaravathi Cooperative Email: a.k_sharma@sify.com,
Housing society, Khrakhana (Near Kaushalya arun.k_sharma@yahoo.co.in
Estates) Website: www.cazri.res.in
Secunderabad- 500 009
Tel. No. (040) 27741891 / (040) 27741229 / 10. Ashok Bang
27742346 Director
Mobile: 09866696322 Alternative Agriculture Resource Centre (AARC)
Email: sanwar@oxfam.org.uk, CHETANA – VIKAS & Sustainable Eco-
shaikan@rediffmail.com Agriculture Programme (Consciousness -
Website: www.oxfam.org.uk Development)
121
 P.O. Gopuri, Wardha District – 442 007, Mobile: 09968233747
Maharashtra Email: chan_econ@yahoo.co.in
Tel. No. (07152) 241931 / 240806 / 240004 Website: www.icar.org.in
Fax. No. (07152) 244005 / 245170
Mobile: 09822228710 17. Chari, M.S.
Email : chetana_wda@sancharnet.in, Former Director, CTRI, ICAR
mail@chetanavikas.org, # 203, OHP Elegance,
chetana_wda@bsnl.in H. No. 2-2-16 /3, 4 and 5
Website: www.chetanavikas.org Lane ‘A’, D.D. Colony
Hyderabad - 500 013
11. Bernhard Hoeper Tel. No. (040) 27017735
Regional Director (South Asia) Mobile: 09693241938
German Agro Action Email: chari_ms@yahoo.co.in,
B-4, Greater Kailash Enclave II charims@yahoo.com
New Delhi – 110 048 Website: www.csa-india.org
Tel. No. (011) 40520131 / 32 / 34
Fax. No. (011) 40520133 18. Chaturvedi, S.P.
Mobile: 09818707992 Agriculture Scientist
Email: Bernhard.hoeper@dwhh.de Peoples Science Institute (PSI)
Website: www.welthungerhilfe.de 252, Vasant Vihar Phase I
Dehradun, Uttaranchal
12. Bhagyalaxmi, S Mobile: 09412915838
Program Officer Email: spfarmspjhansi@yahoo.co.in
Watershed Support Services and Activities Website: www.peoplesscienceinstitute.com
Network (WASSAN)
12-13-452, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, 19. Chopra, V.L.
Secunderabad – 500 017 Member, Planning Commission
Tel. No. 27015295 / 96, 27018581 Government of India
Mobile: 9440621867 Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
Email: bhagya_ramana@yahoo.com New Delhi – 110 001
Website: www.wassan.org Tel. No. (Off.) 2309 6586
Res. No. 25553747
13. Bhat, S.L. Email: vl.chopra@nic.in
Additional Secretary Website: www.planningcommission.gov.in
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation
Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan 20. Devinder Sharma
New Delhi – 110 001 Chairman, Forum for Biotechnology & Food
Tel. No. (011) 23389348 Security
Email: sl.bhat@nic.in G3/F, DDA Flats, 2nd Floor, Munirka,
New Delhi – 110 067
14. Bhatia, P.C. Tel. No. (011) 26176343
Ex – ADG (Agronomy) Mobile: 09811301857
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Email: hunger55@gmail.com
AI / 83, Janakipur, Website: www.dsharma.net
New Delhi – 110 058
Tel. No. (011) 25611126 21. Dhadwad Manohar, B
Mobile: 09868488395 Student
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
15. Chandrasekhar, G # 2, Shishir Hostel, PUSA,
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Programme Manager, New Delhi – 110 012

Centre for Sustainable Agriculture Mobile: 09891299123
12-13-445, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Email: manohar_9986@rediffmail.com,
Secunderabad - 500 017 manohar_4486@rediffmail.com
Mobile: 09440450994 Website: www.icar.org.in
Email: chandrageet@gmail.com
Website: www.csa-india.org 22. Dharmendar, G.R.
Programme Officer
16. Chandru, A Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA)
Student 12-13-445, Street No. 1, Tarnaka,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Secunderabad – 500 017
# 114, Shishir Hostel, Res. No. (08415) 255877
New Delhi – 110 012 Mobile: 09866508488
122
 Email: dharmendar.gr@gmail.com 28. Jagannath, N.R.
Website: www.csa-india.org Project Coordinator
Swiss Agency for Development and
23. Gogoi, A.K. Cooperation
ADG (Agronomy) Embassy of Switzerland,
Division of Agronomy Chandragupta Marg, Chanakyapuri
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) New Delhi - 110 021,
KAB – II, Room No. 50, 1st Floor, Tel. No. (011) 26877819 / 26877820
IARI Directorate, Email: nr.jagannath@sdc.net
New Delhi – 110 012
Tel. No. (011) 25848367 / (011) 25841488 / 29. Jai Krishna
25846536 Campaigner GREENPEACE
Mobile: 09312507553 No. 3360, 13th ‘B’ Main Road,
Email: akumargogoi@yahoo.com HAL II Stage, Bangalore – 560 038
Website: www.icar.org.in Mobile: 09845591992
24. Gopi Krishna 30. Jain, S.C.
Project Coordinator Programme Coordinator
JANA JAGARN Action for Food Production (AFPRO)
Shramik Abhivrudh Sangh 25/1A, Pankha Road, ‘D’ Block, Janakpuri,
20, Milkman Street, CAMP New Delhi – 110 058
Belgaum – 590 001 Tel. No. (011) 28525452 (226)
Tel. No. (0831) 2431978 Mobile: 09868607509
Fax. No. (0831) 2425609 Email: scjain@afpro.org
Mobile: 09448132609 Website: www.afpro.org
Email: gopikrishna50@yahoo.com
31. Jambhale, N.D.
25. Gouri, P.V.S.M. Assistant Director General (Seeds)
Advisor (Organic Products) Indian Council of Agricultural Research (IARI)
Agricultural and Processed Food Products 225, Krishi Bhawan,
Export Development Authority (APEDA) New Delhi – 110 001
Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Telefax. No. (011) 23382257
Government of India Mobile: 09871110470 / 09911394996
3rd Floor, NCUI Building, 3, Siri Institutional Email: ndjambhale@yahoo.co.in,
Area, August Kranti Marg (Opp. Asiad Village) adgseed.icar@nic.in
New Delhi – 110 016
Tel. No. (011) 26514525 (Direct)/ 26514572 32. Jasbir Madan
Email: gouri_org@apeda.com, Scientist
org@apeda.com Voluntary Action for Research Development
Website: www.apeda.com and Networking (VARDAN)
EB-106, Maya Enclave,
26. Himanshu Thakkar New Delhi – 110064
Coordinator, SANDRP Tel. No. (011) 25495254
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People Res. No. (011) 25524667
# 86-D, AD Block, Shalimar Bagh Fax. No. (011) 25120696
New Delhi - 110 088 Mobile : 09818222552
Tel. No. (011) 27484655 Email: vardan_ngo@yahoo.com
Mobile: 09968242798 Website: www.vardan.org
E-mail: ht.sandrp@gmail.com

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Website: www.sandrp.in 33. Jinnah, S.N.A.
General Manager,
27. Jagannadha Rao, K. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Project Coordinator Development
Centre for Environment Concerns (CEC) A-5/II/3, NABARD Park, Santa Cruz, Khira
H.No. 3-4-142/6, Barkatpura Nagar,
Hyderabad - 500 027. Mumbai – 400 054
Tel. No. (040) 27564959 Tel. No. (022) 26539625 / 26530007
Mobile: 9866449067 Fax. No. (022) 26523895
Email: hyd2_cenvicon@sancharnet.in, Res. No. (022) 26614673
cechyd@eth.net Email: dpd.fs@nabard.org
Website: www.nabard.org
123
 34. Joseph, A.K. Mobile: 09844102515
Senior Programme Coordinator Email: mans.lanting@planet.nl
Capitalisation of Livestock Programme Website: www.etc-india.org, www.etcindia.org
Experiences India (CALPI)
B-34, Sarvodaya Enclave, 40. Linu Mathew Philip
New Delhi - 110 017 Research Officer
Tel. No. (011) 26868536 Centre for Trade & Development (CENTAD)
Res. No. (011) 26852797 A-1/304, Safdarjung Enclave,
Mobile: 09868040966 New Delhi – 110 029
Email: joseph@intercooperation.org.in Tel. No. (011) 41459226
Website: www.intercooperation.org.in Mobile: 09899976106
Email: Mathew.philip@centad.org
35. Joshi, K.C. Website: www.centad.org
Under Secretary (NRM)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 41. Mangala Rai
H. No. 456, Hawa Singh Block, Secretary (DARE) & DG, ICAR
Asiad Village Residential Complex, Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
New Delhi – 110 012 Room No. 105 KB, A-1, NASC Complex,
Tel. No. (011) 25748847 DPSM, New Delhi – 110 012
Res. No. (011) 65151293 Tel. No. 23382629,23386711 (Ext: 475)
Email: kcjoshi@icar.org.in Email: mrai.icar@nic.in
Website: www.icar.org.in Website: www.icar.org.in
36. Joy, K.J. 42. Minhas, P.S.
Senior Fellow Assistant Director General (IWM)
Society for Promoting Participative Eco-system Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Management (SOPPECOM) KAB-II, Pusa, New Delhi - 110 012
16, Kale Park, Someshwarwadi Road, Tel. No. (011) 25848370
Pashan, Mobile: 09810506971
Pune - 411 008 Email: psminhas@icar.org.in
Tel. No. (020) 25880786 / 25886542 Website. www.icar.org.in
Res. No. (020) 25886542
Mobile: 09422505473 43. Nanda Kumar, R
Email: joykjjoy@gmail.com Consultant – NPMi
Website: www.soppecom.com # 12-2-314/16, 1st Floor,
Mohan Nivas, Ushodaya Colony,
37. Kamal Kishore Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad – 500 028
Wool Consultant Tel. No. (040) 23511083
42, I.A. Shamshi Mobile: 09490751071
Kullu – 175 126, Himachal Pradesh Email: nandakumar102@gmail.com
Res. No. (01902) 260572
Mobile: 09418060572 44. Narasimha Reddy, N. L.
Email: kamal_3456@yahoo.co.in Chief Executive Officer
Poverty Learning Foundation (PLF)
38. Katyal, J.C # 12-5-149/6A, Vijayapuri Colony, Tarnaka,
Vice - Chancellor Secunderabad - 500 017
CCS Haryana Agricultural University Tel. No. (040) 27017428
Hisar - 125 004, Haryana Mobile: 09849398647
Tel. No. (01662) 231640 / 284301 Email: info@plf.org.in
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Res. No. (01662) 231238 / 284342 Website: www.plf.org.in

Mobile: 09416031640 45. Nawab Ali
Email: vc@hau.ernet.in, jckatyal@hau.ernet.in Deputy Director General (Engg.) / NRM
Website: www.hau.ernet.in Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan – II, Pusa Gate,
39. Lanting, H New Delhi – 110 012
Chief Executive Officer Tel. No. (011) 25843415
ETC Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., Tel. (011) 25848364, 25842285 (Ext 1408)
Consultants for Development Programmes Email: nali@icar.org.in
‘Srinivas’ 2nd Floor, # C2, Site No. 2 & 3, Website: www.icar.org.in
Yadhava Farm’, Near RBI Layout,
Chunchaghatta, Bangalore – 560 062
Tel. No. (080) 26638112 / 26638120
124
46. Nivedita Varshneya Hermitage Office Complex, HUDA Bhavan,
Programme Manager Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad - 500 044
Deutsche Welthungerhilfre / German Agro Tel. No. (040) 23298981/2/76 (Extn:105)
Action (DWHH/GAA) Liaison Office India Mobile: 09948990855
B-4, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part II Email: raidudv@gmail.com
New Delhi – 110 048 Website: www.velugu.org
Tel. No. (011) 40520132 / 143 / 134
Mobile: 9891437147 53. Ram Badan Singh
Email: nivedita.varshneya@dwhh.org Member, National Commission on Farmers
Website: www.welthungerhilfe.de and Chairman, Working Group on NRM
Office Block, 2nd Floor, NASC Complex,
47. Padma Kumar, V Opp. Todapur Village,
Programme Officer PUSA, New Delhi - 110 012
Capitalisation of Livestock Programme Tel. No. (011) 25869320
Experiences India (CALPI) Res. No. (011) 26136450
B-34, Sarvodaya Enclave, Email:
New Delhi - 110 017 rb.singh@nic.in,rambsingh@hotmail.com
Tel. No. (011) 26868536 Website: www.krishakayog.gov.in
Mobile: 09810843805
Email: padma12312@rediffmail.com 54. Rama Chandrudu, M.V.
Website: www.intercooperation.org.in Director
Watershed Support Services and Activities
48. Pateria, H.M. Network
STO (Agronomy) 12-13-452, Street No. 1, Tarnaka,
Division of Agronomy Secunderabad – 500 017
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Tel. No. 27015295 / 96, 27018581
Room No. 114, KAB II Mobile: 9440621861
New Delhi – 110 012 Email: duram@rediffmail.com
Website: www.wassan.org
49. Pathak, R.K.
Chief Consultant, 55. Ramakrishna, Y.S.
National Horticulture Mission, Director
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Central Research Institute for Dryland
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India Agriculture (CRIDA)
37, Bhavan Krishi Bhavan, Santosh Nagar, Saidabad (PO)
New Delhi – 110 01 Hyderabad - 500059
Mobile: 09868171790 Tel. No. (040) 24530177
Email: pathakrkripal@yahoo.co.in Res. No. (040) 24532262
Website: www.nhm.nic.in Mobile : 09849745877
Fax. No. (040) 24531802
50. Priti Kumar Email: Ramakrishna.ys@crida.ernet.in
Environmental Specialist Website: www.crida.ernet.in
South Asia Environment and Social
Development Unit, The World Bank 56. Ramanjaneyulu, G.V.
70, Lodi Estate, New Delhi - 110 003 Executive Director,
Tel. No. (011) 51479365 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA)
Email: pkumar2@worldbank.org 12-13-445, Street No. 1, Tarnaka,
Secunderabad - 500 017
51. Radhika Rani, Ch Tel. No. (040) 27017735, 27014302

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Programme Director Mobile: 09391359702
Centre for Agrarian Studies (CSA) Email: gvramanjaneyulu@gmail.com
National Institute of Rural Development Website: www.csa-india.org
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030
Tel. No. (040) 24008559 57. Ramesh Babu, B
Res. No. (040) 23812723 Manager,
Email: radhikacherukuri@yahoo.co.in, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural
Website: www.nird.gov.in Development
BKC, Bandra (E)
52. Raidu, D.V. Mumbai – 400 051
Senior Program Advisor (NPM), Tel. No. (022) 26539633
Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) Res. No. (022) 28700737
H.No. 5-10-192, III & IV Floor, Fax. No. (022) 26523295
125
 Mobile: 09869063644 63. Rita Sharma
Email: ramesh.borigadda@nabard.org Financial Adviser (DARE & ICAR)
Website: www.nabard.org and Additional Secretary, DARE, Ministry of
Agriculture
58. Ramesh Kumar, M Department of Agricultural Research and
Program Manager (Resource Centre) Education
Watershed Support Services and Activities Krishi Bhawan,
Network New Delhi – 110 001
12-13-452, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Tel. No. (011) 23384360
Secunderabad – 500 017 Email: ritasharma1984@yahoo.com,
Tel. No. 27015295 / 96, 27018581 rita_sha@nic.in
Email: rkmadas@gmail.com Website: www.icar.org.in
Website: www.wassan.org
64. Routray, Dhirendra Kumar
59. Rao, D.U.M. Assistant General Manager, NABARD
Senior Scientist, Office 1-1-61, R.T.C ‘X’ Road Musheerabad,
Division of Agricultural Extension Post Box No. 1863, Hyderabad – 500 020
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) Tel. No. (040) 23740676
New Delhi – 110 012 Mobile: 09490438367
Tel. No. (011) 25846434 Email: nabapro_hyd@dataone.in,
Res. No. (011) 65470530 dkrctc@yahoo.co.in
Fax. No. (011) 25846434 Website: www.nabard.org
Mobile: 09971749256
Email: umaraod@gmail.com 65. Roy, D.K.
Website: www.iari.res.in Under Secretary
National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA)
60. Rao, K.V. NASC Complex, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg,
Senior Scientist (Soil & Water Cons. Engg.) Opp: Todapur Village, Pusa,
and New Delhi – 110 012
Officer-in-Charge, ARIS Tel. No. (011) 25842836 / 25842838
Santoshnagar, Hyderabad - 500 059 Fax No. (011) 25842837
Tel. No. (040) 24530161 (Ext 208)
Res. No. (040) 24126354 66. Rupela, O.P.
Fax. No. (040)24531802 Principal Scientist (Microbiology) and
Mobile: 09441067855 Coordinator, Learning Systems Unit
Email: kvrao@crida.ernet.in, ICRISAT, Patanacheru - 502 324
mlkv33@yahoo.co.in Andhra Pradesh
Website: www.crida.ernet.in Tel. No. (040) 30713610 / 30713435
Email: o.rupela@cgiar.org, j.nalini@cgiar.org
61. Ravindra, A Website: www.cgiar.org
Secretary
Watershed Support Services and Activities 67. Sachin Oza
Network Executive Director
12-13-452, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Development Support Center
Secunderabad – 500 017 Marutinandan Village, (Near Government
Tel. No. 27015295 / 96, 27018581 Tubewell), H.L. Commerce College Road,
Mobile: 9440621861 Bopal, Ahmedabad - 380 058
Email: wassan@eth.net, raviwn@gmail.com Tel. No. (02717) 235994, 235995, 235998
Website: www.wassan.org Mobile: 9426310093
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Email: dscbopal@gmail.com,
62. Reddy, W.R. Website: www.dscindia.org
Joint Secretary
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation 68. Samasthi, R.M.
Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan Assistant Commission
New Delhi – 110 001 National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA)
Tel. No. (011) 23073384 (O) NASC Complex, NRAA, PUSA Complex,
Fax. No. (011)23384468 New Delhi – 110 012
Res. No. (011)24352460 Mobile: 09873735594
E-mail : reddywr@nic.in
69. Samra, J.S.
Chief Executive Officer
National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA)
2nd Floor, NASC Complex,
126
 Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, 75. Shambu Prasad, C
Opp: Todapur Village, Pusa, Associate Professor
New Delhi – 110 012 Xavier Institute of Management
Tel. No. (011) 25842836 / 25842838 / Xavier Square, Post: RRL
Fax No. (011) 25842837 Bhubaneswar - 751 013
Mobile: 9868510491 Tel. No. (0674) 3983740 / (0674) 3983819
Email: jssamra2001@yahoo.com (Library)
Res. No. (0674) 3983876
70. Sandip Das Fax. No. (0674) 2300995
Senior Research Associate Mobile: 09437076342
Centre for Science and Environment Email: shambuprasad@gmail.com,
41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area shambu@ximb.ac.in
New Delhi - 110062 Website: www.ximb.ac.in
Tel. No. (011) 29956110 / 29956399 (Ext 225)
Mobile: 09871198823 76. Shankar, M.A.
Email: sandip@cseindia.org Chief Scientist,
Website: www.cseindia.org AICRP on Dryland Research Project,
University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK,
71. Sanghi, N.K. Bangalore – 560 065
Adviser Tel.No. (080) 23620795 / 23330153
Watershed Support Services and Activities Res. No. (080) 23620795
Network Landline: (080) 23331539
12-13-452, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Mobile: 09910989693
Secunderabad – 500 017 Email: drylanduasb@rediffmail.com
Tel. No. 27015295 / 96, 27018581
Mobile: 9440621864 77. Sharma, M.R.
Email: nksanghi@yahoo.com Chief Consultant, National Horticultural
Website: www.wassan.org Mission
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation
72. Sanjeev Raj Ministry of Agriculture,
Hydrogeologist Room No. 37-B, Krishi Bhawan,
Action for Food Production (AFPRO) New Delhi – 110 001
251/A, ‘D’ Block, Pankha Road, Janakpuri Tel. No. (011) 23389614
New Delhi – 110 058 Mobile: 09910101612
Mobile: 09811439285 Email: mrsdoac@yahoo.co.in
Email: sanjeevrajiv@afpro.org, Website: www.nhm.nic.in
sanjeevr@afpro.org
Website: www.afpro.org 78. Sharma, O.P.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
73. Satheesh, P.V. Natural Resource Management Division
Director, Room No. 105 KAB II
Deccan Development Society Nehru Road, Baraut Road,
101, Kishan Residency, Street No. 5, Bhagpat – 250 611
Begumpet, Tel. No. (011) 25848365 (1105)
Hyderabad - 500 016 Mobile: 091234264815
Tel. No. (040) 27764577 / (040) 27764744 Email: opsharma.icar@nic.in
Mobile: 09246876377 Website: www.icar.org.in
Email: satheeshperiyapatna@yahoo.com,
hyd1_ddshyd@sancharnet.in 79. Singh, E.R.P.

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Website: www.ddsindia.com Head
Department of Agricultural Engineering
74. Shailendra Tiwari K.A.P.G. College
Incharge (NRM Unit), Seva Mandir Allahabad – 211 001
Old Fatehpura, Udaipur - 313 001 Mobile: 0941592162
Rajasthan Email: rpsinghkd@gmail.com
Tel. No. (0294) 2451041 / (0294) 2450960
Res. No. (0294) 2453421 80. Singh, G.B.
Mobile: 09414155421 Technical Officer
Email: shailendra.tiwari@sevamandir.org Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Website: www.sevamandir.org Anusam Dhan Bhavan, PUSA
New Delhi – 110 017
Website: www.icar.org.in
127
 81. Singh, R.K. 87. Tirupataiah, K
Programme Coordinator Special Commissioner (Development)
RDS Krishi Vigyan Kendra Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Pratapgarh Commissionerate of Rural Development
Pin Code – 229 408 H.No. 5-10-192, 2nd and 5th Floors,
Res. No. (0532) 2684231 Hermitage Complex, HUDA Bhavan,
Mobile: 09415200601 Hill Fort Road, Saifabad
Email: rksingh3@yahoo.com Hyderabad - 500 004
Website: www.kvkpratapgarh.org Tel. No. (040) 23298979 / (040) 23296790
Mobile: 09848040703
82. Sreeramulu, P Email: kota_86@rediffmail.com,
Retd. Additional Secretary, pmuaprlp@hotmail.com
Animal Husbandry, GoAP Website: www.rd.ap.gov.in
Flat No. 102B, B.N.R. Apartments
Attapur Road, Hyderabad – 500 048 88. Tiwari, M.K.
Tel. No. (040) 24016072 Unit Head, Natural Resource Management
Mobile: 09908169011 Programme
Email: piedy_sreeramulu@yahoo.com CECOEDECON, SWARAJ
Bhavan, F-159-160, Industrial & Institutional
83. Sudip Mitra Area, Sitapura, Jaipur-302 022,
Project Director Tel. No. (0141) 2771488/2771855/3294834-36
Tata Trust Bio-industrial Watershed Project Fax. No. (0141) 2770330
M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation Mobile: 09828195517
III Cross Street, Taramani Institutional Area Email: mkt_sept@yahoo.com,
Chennai – 600 113 cecoedecon@indiatimes.com
Tel. No. (044) 22541229, 22542698, 22542699 Website: www.cecoedecon.org /
Direct: (044) 65299025 www.ftncoalition.org
Mobile: 9444018534
Email: sudipmitra@yahoo.com, 89. Tripathi, J.P.
sudip@mssrf.res.in Programme Specialist
Website: www.mssrf.res.in 9th and 10th Floor, Corporate House,
Opp. Dinesh Hall, Off. Ashram Road,
84. Suresh, K Ahmedabad – 380 009
Director (Resource Centre) Tel. No. (079) (079) 2754 0421 / 1678 / 2158
Watershed Support Services and Activities Mobile: 098254 64902
Network Email: jptripathi@akrspi.org
12-13-452, Street No. 1, Tarnaka, Website: www.akrspi.org
Secunderabad – 500 017
Tel. No. 27015295 / 96, 27018581 90. Tyagi, Ombeer Singh
Mobile: 9440804860 Senior Manager
Email: sureshkosaraju@yahoo.co.in International Development Enterprise - India
Website: www.wassan.org C 5/43, (1st & 2nd Floor)
Safdurjang Development Area
85. Surya Kumar, P.V.S. New Delhi – 110016
Deputy General Manager Tel. No. (011) 46000400, 26969812, 26969813
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Mobile: 09873417177
Development Email: tyagi@ide-india.org,
Usmanpura, tyagios@yahoo.com
Ahmedabad – 3800 013 Website: www.ide-india.org
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

Tel. No. (079) 27558111

Mobile: 09866249622 91. Vanaja, K
Email: pvssk@yahoo.com Program Officer
Website: www.nabard.org Watershed Support Services and Activities
Network (WASSAN)
86. Tejbir Singh 12-13-452, Street No. 1, Tarnaka,
Senior Technical Officer Secunderabad – 500 017
Indian Council of Agricultural Research Tel. No. 27015295 / 96, 27018581
Natural Resource Management Division Mobile: 9985674836
Room No. 114, KAB II Email: vanasu4u@gmail.com
New Delhi – 110 012 Website: www.wassan.org
128
92. Vasant Saberwal 96. Vyas Vijay Shanker
Program Officer (Environment and Professor Emeritus,
Development), Ford Foundation Institute Of Development Studies (Ids).
55, Lodi Estate, New Delhi - 110 003 396 Vashundhara Extension,
Tel. No. (011) 24619441 / 24648401 Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road,
Mobile: 9818369335 Jaipur – 302018, Rajasthan
Email: v.saberwal@fordfound.org Tel. No. (0141) 2705601
Website: www.fordfound.org Fax. No. (0141) 2709938
Mobile: 09829065032
93. Venkateswarlu, B Email: vsvyas@mac.com, vsvyas@idsj.org
Principal Scientist and Head of Division Website: www.idsj.org
Central Research Institute for Dryland
Agriculture (CRIDA) 97. Wani, S.P.
Santoshnagar, Saidabad P.O. Principal Scientist (Watersheds) and
Hyderabad - 500 059 Regional Theme Coordinator (Asia)
Tel. No. (040) 24535336 Global Theme on Agroecosystem
Mobile: 09441437812 International Crops Research Institute for the
Email: bv_natp@crida.ernet.in, Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
vbandi@crida.ernet.in, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh
vbandi_1953@yahoo.com Tel. No. (040) 30713466
Website: www.crida.ernet.in Res. No. (040) 27111263
Fax. No. (040) 30713074
94. Venkateswarlu, J Mobile: 9849005546
Former Director, CAZRI Email: s.wani@cgiar.org
26, SBI Colony, Gandhinagar Website: www.icrisat.org
Hyderabad – 500 080
Tel. No. (040) 27532928 / 27530330 98. Yugandhar, B.N.
Mobile: 09849040635 Member, Planning Commission
Email: jagarlapudi34@yahoo.co.in Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001
95. Vijay Kumar, T Tel. No. (011) 23096566
Chief Executive Officer Mobile: 09899033988
Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) Email: yugandhar.bn@nic.in,
H. No. 5-10-192, IIIrd and IVth Floors, bnyugi@hotmail.com
Hermitage HUDA Complex,
Hill Fort Road, Adarsh Nagar,
Hyderabad - 500 004
Tel. No. (040) 23298468, 69 / 23298468, 69
Email: vijay@velugu.org,
vjthallam@yahoo.com ■
Website: www.velugu.org

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

129
 Annexure – 3
Group Work on Specific Themes – List of Members
Theme 1 : Agriculture in Rainfed Areas; Soils, Pest Management and Seeds
(Facilitator : B. Venkateswarlu)
❑ Y.S. Ramakrishna ❑ G.V. Ramanjaneyulu
❑ G. Dharmendra ❑ Arun K. Sharma
❑ M.A. Sharma ❑ G.R. Chandrasekhar
❑ D.V. Raidu ❑ K. Abdul Kareem
❑ Ashok Bang
Theme 2 : Water for Rainfed Areas
(Facilitator : K. J. Joy)
❑ K.V. Rao ❑ M.V. Rama Chandrudu
❑ S.K. Anwar ❑ R.P. Singh
❑ R.K. Singh ❑ Sudip Mitra
❑ D.K. Routray ❑ A.K. Gogoi
❑ Achyut Das
Theme 3 : Re-looking at Livestock in Rainfed Areas
(Facilitator : Dr. V. Padma Kumar)
❑ A.K. Joseph ❑ S.K. Singh
❑ Shailendra Tiwari ❑ P. Sreeramulu
❑ A. Ravindra ❑ S. Bhagya Laxmi
❑ Gopi Krishna ❑ K. Vanaja
Theme 4 : Institutions for Rainfed Areas Development
(Facilitator: Dr. Amita Shah)
❑ T. Vijay Kumar ❑ Ch. Radhika Rani
❑ B. Ramesh Babu ❑ N.K. Sanghi
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

❑ M.V. Rama Chandrudu ❑ R. Nand Kumar

❑ P.V.S. Surya Kumar ❑ S.N.A. Jinnah
❑ M. Ramesh Kumar ❑ C. Shambu Prasad
❑ H. Lanting ❑ K. Jagannadha Rao
❑ N.L. Narasimha Reddy
130
 Glossary
% : Percent
< : Less than
> : More than
AESA : Agro Ecosystem Analysis
AFPRO : Action for Food Production
AICRPDA :
AKRSP : Aghakhan Rural
APDS : Alternative Public Distribution System
APDS : Alternate Public Distribution System
APEDA : Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority
APMIP : Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project
APRLP : Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Program
Bt : bacillus thuringiensis
Cal : Calcium
CALPI : Capitalization of Livestock Programme Experiences in India
CAZRI : Central Arid Zone Research Institute
CBOs : Community Based Organizations
CGF : Community Grain Fund
CIF : Common Investment Fund
CPR : Common Pool Resources
CRIDA : Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
CSA : Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
CWS : Centre for World Solidarity
DARE : Department of Agricultural Research and Education
DDS : Deccan Development Society
DFID : Department for International Development
DGM : Deputy General Manager
DPAP : Drought Prone Area Program
DSC : Development Support Centre
DWMA : District Water Management Agency
FAO : Food Agriculture Organization
Fe : Ferrous

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

FFS : Farmer’s Field School
FFW : Food for Work
FYM : Farm Yard Manure
GDP : Gross Domestic Product
GIDR : Gujarat Institute of Development Research
GIS : Geographical Information Systems
GM : Genetically Modified
GO : Government Organization
GoAP : Government of Andhra Pradesh
GWA : Groundwater Authority
ha : Hectare
131
 HYV : High Yielding Variety
ICAR : Indian Council of Agriculture Research
ICDS : Integrated Child Development Services
ICRISAT : International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IDE : International Development Enterprise
IFS : Inorganic Farming System
IKP : Indira Kranthi Patham
IPM : Integrated Pest Management
ISOPOM : Integrated Scheme of Pulses, Oilseeds, Maize
ITK : Indigenous Technical Knowledge
K : Potassium
Kg : Kilogram
KVK : Krishi Vigyan Kendra
LEISA : Low-External-Input Sustainable Agriculture
MACS : Mutually Aided Cooperative Society
MFI : Micro Finance Institution
MMS : Mandal Mahila Samakhya
MoU : Memorandum of Understanding
MPS : Minimum Price Support
MSSRF : M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation
MT : Metric Tonne
NABARD : National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
NAIP : National Agricultural Innovation Project
NGO : Non Government Organization
NHM : National Horticulture Mission
NIRD : National Institute of Rural Development
NNM : Non chemical methods of Nutrient Management
NPK : Ntrogen, Phasporous and Potassium
NPM : Non Pesticidal Management
NRAA : National Rainfed Area Authority
NRC : Natural Resource Conservation
NREGS : National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
NRM : Natural Resource Management
NRU : Natural Resource Utilization
NTFP : Non Timber Forest Produce
OF : Organic Farming
OFS : Organic Farming System
P : Phosphorous
New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

PACS : Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies

PCF : Price Stabilization Fund
PDS : Public Distribution System
PGS : Participatory Guarantee Scheme
PHM :
PLF : Poverty Learning Foundation
PP : Procurement Price
PRI : Panchayat Raj Institution
R&D : Research and Development
RDT : Rural Development Trust
132
RKVY : Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana
Rs : Rupees
S : Sulphur
SANDRP : South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People
SAUs : State Agricultural Universities
SC : Scheduled Caste
SDC : Swiss Development Cooperation
SERP : Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty
SHGs : Self Help Groups
SOM : Soil Organic Matter
SOPPECOM : Society for Promoting Participate Ecosystem Management
sq. ft : Square feet
SREP : Strategic Research and Extension Plan
SRI : System of Rice Intensification
ST : Scheduled Tribe
T/L : Truthfully Labeled
TFI : Total Financial Inclusion
UAS : University of Agricultural Sciences
VO : Village Organization
VVV : Vikas Volunteer Vahini
WASSAN : Watershed Support Services and Activities Network (WASSAN)
WTO : World Trade Organization
XIMS : Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar
Zn : Zinc
ZS : Zilla Samakhyas
■

New Paradigm for Rainfed Farming

133
 NABARD
Committed to Rural Prosperity
Mission Objectives
PROMOTE SUSTANABLE AND ❖ Facilitating credit flow for agriculture and rural
EQUITABLE AGRICULTURE AND development
RURAL PROSPERITY THROUGH ❖ Promoting and supporting policies, practices and
EFFECTIVE CREDIT SUPPORT, innovations conducive to rural development
RELATED SERVICES, INSTITUTIONAL ❖ Strengthening and regulating of rural credit delivery
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER system through institutional development measures
INNOVATIVE INITIATIVES. and effective supervision.
Major Activities
❖ Promoting Natural Resources Management through participatory watershed development and
Tribal Development Programmes for enhancing productivity and profitability of rainfed agriculture
in a sustainable manner.
❖ Supporting Innovations in Farm and Non Farm Sectors.
❖ Preparing of Potential Linked Credit Plans for identification of exploitable potential under agriculture
and other activities available for development through bank credit.
❖ Refinancing banks for extending loans for investment and production purpose in rural areas.
❖ Providing loans to State Government/ Non Government Organisations (NGOs)/ Panchayati Raj
Institutions (PRIs) for developing rural infrastructure.
❖ Supporting credit innovations of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) and other non-formal
agencies.
❖ Extending formal banking services to the unreached rural poor by evolving a supplementary credit
delivery strategy in a cost effective manner by promoting Self Help Groups (SHGs).
❖ Providing consultancy services for agriculture, rural development and rural finance.
❖ On-site inspection of cooperative banks and Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) and off-site surveillance
over health of cooperatives and RRBs
NABARD
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
H O : Plot No C-24, 5th Floor, 'A' Wing, Bandhra Kurla Complex, Bandhra (East), Mumbai -400 051
Ph: 022 - 26539625 / 26530083 Fax : 022 - 26523895
web : www.nabard.org