Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh

G. V. Ramanjaneyulu1, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

Andhra Pradesh has the dubious distinction of being the home for ‘Farmers’ Suicides’ in
India. Out of the 32 districts identified by Planning Commission and the Prime Minister’s
Relief scheme as districts being under serious agrarian distress, 16 are in Andhra Pradesh.
Since, 1987-88 farmers’ suicides are reported from various parts of the state. Among various
reasons for the crisis higher dependency on external inputs contributing to economic and
ecological distress are important issues which need to be addressed.

Fig. 1. Agriculture Cost of Production for Small & Marginal Farmers in AP

Source: NSS Report No. 497 (Income, Expenditure and Productive Assets of Farmer
Households) 2003

ECOLOGICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION

Faced by increasing input costs, degradation of productive lands, and increased sense of
farmers’ helplessness in face of multiple constraints the NGOs the Community Based
Organisations have responded with important agriculture production initiatives to
reduce input burdens, develop sustainable agriculture methodologies in where farmers
play a central role in the development process. With State Government Stepping in the
movement has been scaled up to a larger scale.

Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh:

Centre for Sustainable Agriculture works with small and marginal farmers in Andhra
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Chhattisgarh in establishing locally adapted farming
systems based on sustainable agriculture practices through community based on
organisations.

1
Agriculture Scientist, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, 12-13-445, Street no-1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad-
500017. ramoo@csa-india.org, 09000699702
While several such models remain as islands of success, CSA worked with Humboldt
University, Germany to assess scaling up potential of sustainable agriculture and
designed a scaling up model and worked with Rural Development Department of
Andhra Pradesh through its Watershed Programs and Women Self Groups.

Andhra Pradesh Rural Poverty Reduction Project (APRPRP): The APRPRP is

implemented through Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), a society under
the state Rural Development Department, under the umbrella of the state Indira Kranthi
Patham (IKP) program. In APRPRP areas, households have very low endowments of
physical and human capital, which limits their ability for gainful self-employment. At the
same time, agriculture is the main source of livelihood though there were very few non-
agricultural livelihood opportunities (see box on individual household loans). The
resulting seasonality of available employment, as well as the likelihood of periodic
droughts, not only makes investment risky but also meant that the wage labour has
become more constrained. This has led to much hidden unemployment and distress
migration which further undermined
Non Pesticidal Management (NPM)
livelihood opportunities. Given the
limited access to irrigation,
agricultural income has been exposed
to the weather risks, in particular
periodic droughts, which affected not
only persons who owned land but also
users of common property resources
and wage earners (Galab and Reddy,
2010).

Genesis & details of the Intervention:

During 2004-05 when the poor in

Andhra Pradesh experienced a period of
serious livelihoods crisis, the Society for
Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP),
under the livelihood initiative of the
Government of AP working with
Federations of Women Self Help
Groups, identified increasing costs of
cultivation due to heavy dependency on
external inputs as one of the main
reasons for the growing indebtedness.
Learning from the experiences of
villages like Punukula and Enabavi in
AP, SERP initiated pilot scaling up of
Non Pesticidal Management (NPM) in
collaboration with a consortium of
Civil Society Organisations in 2005-06
(Ramanjaneyulu et. al 2008, Vijay
Kumar et.al 2009).
The ecological and economical problems of
pests and pesticides in agriculture gave rise to
several eco-friendly innovative approaches
which do not rely on the use of chemical
pesticides. These initiatives involved
rediscovering traditional practices and
contemporary grass root innovations
supplemented by strong scientific analysis
mainly supported by non-formal institutions
like NGOs. Such innovations have begun to play
an important role in development sector.
Non Pesticidal Management which is an
‘ecological approach to pest management using
knowledge and skill based practices to prevent
insects from reaching damaging stages and
damaging proportions by making best use of
local resources, natural processes and
community action’.
 Farmer Field School approach originally designed and promoted by FAO was suitably
modified and establish to train farmers (both women and men) regularly on the NPM and
other ecological farming practices.

 The program is implemented using experienced farmers as ‘Community Resource

Persons’ (both women and men) and the Federations of Women Self Groups at the
Mandal level (Block level) managed the entire program. The program was supported by
experienced local NGOs and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture as the nodal agency for
technical support and project management till 2007-08.

 The initial success with NPM, SERP has cast its net wide across the country to identify
best practices from the successful ecological farming models. Ecological/Natural
Farming Master farmers like Sri. Bhaskar Save, Sri. Subash Palekar, Sri. Nammalwar
have provided inspiration and necessary support to promote ‘Polycrop’ models, Organic
soil management practices, soil and water conservation, and In situ water harvesting
practices.

 By 2007-08 the program spread to more than 7.0 lakh acres across the state, largely
through the support of NGOs. It became evident during this period, that resource
conserving, regenerative, sustainable agriculture practices which are largely based on
local resources based solutions, farmers knowledge and skill in packaging them to suit
their situations, bring in wide set of benefits that accrue to the practitioners and their farm
ecology. In 2007-08 a state level Project Management Unit was setup to take over the
roles of providing overall technical support and project management.

 As the scope of the intervention expanded it was named as ‘Community Managed

Sustainable Agriculture’ (CMSA). CMSA represents a model of agriculture which is
largely based on farmers’ resources, knowledge and skills and the institutional systems
for learning are managed by the Community.

Role of Institutions of Poor and their functionaries One of the main objectives of this
initiative was to establish a community managed learning and management system to build
more accountability and ownership in the system.

a. VO Sub Committee: at the village level, a practicing farmer is identified as a Village

Activist who is responsible for organising and documenting FFS. The Village
Organisation (VO) is the federation of the all women SHG groups in the village, and a
subcommittee in the VO monitors the progress every month. Five such villages are
grouped into a cluster and is supported by a Cluster Activist.
b. MMS Sub Committee: At the Mandal level (AP equivalent of blocks) the cluster are
reviewed on a monthly basis by the Mandal Mahila Samakya (MMS) sub- committee.
MMS identifies the villages where the agriculture program would be implemented
based on the response of the members from villages which can be grouped as a
cluster. MMS subcommittee can also enter into an agreement with any Resource
NGO for providing technical support.
c. Zilla Samakya Sub Committee: At the district level, the program is reviewed on a
monthly basis by the Zilla Samkya Sub Committee. The District Project Manager
(DPM, of SERP) provides the required administrative support in monitoring and
documenting. Zilla Samakya Sub Committee identifies Mandals where the program
would be implemented.
 d. Community Resource Persons (CRPs): Successfully practicing farmers are selected
as Community Resource Persons who help in supporting and promoting sustainable
agriculture practices.
e. Non Governmental Organisations: Initially when the program was started NGOs
played the important role of providing handholding support to the women’s SHGs for
three years 2005-06 to 2007-08, both at grassroots and state level. In a process of
gradual role change SHGs have taken over the project implementation and CRPs have
taken over the capacity building roles.

The funds for the program are released to the MMS and CRPs, Village and Cluster Activists
are paid by the MMS. Each participating farmers pays a registration fee of Rs. 30/year which
would be deposited with the VO.

Implementation strategy

The implementation process uses several important methods to ensure close community
participation and learning and management involvement:

Village Immersion: the villages are identified based on the expression of interest of the VO
(Village Organisation) members in the MMS (Mandal Mahila Samakya) sub-committee
meeting. A village immersion program is organised where CRPs (Community Resource
Persons), Cluster Activist and DPMs (District Project Manager) discuss about the agriculture
situation and share learning from CMSA from other villages. The program identifies
interested farmers, and organises them into FFS (Farmers Field School) groups. During the
processes of immersion village Resource Mapping is also done to identify locally available
resources, cropping systems, local knowledge etc.

Farmers’ Field School (FFS) forms the basic unit of learning. Each Farmers’ Field School
is a relatively homogenous group of farmers and the FFS meets every week in one of the
members field to learn, discuss and take decisions regarding actions to be taken managing
their crops. Village activist and cluster activist will organise these field schools. Sometimes
Community Resource Persons may also join.

ICTs for information sharing and reviewing: Video Conferences to review progress are
organised for every fortnight. The cluster activists, MMS and ZS leaders, District Project
Managers attend and share information. Similarly Mobiles phones are used to disseminate
important alerts and suggestions, TV channels were used to share information regularly on
production practices.

Further there are key sub-interventions which directly assist farmers gain greater role in the
production process:

Community Seed Banks: In the identified villages, the seed requirements (both in terms of
varieties and quantities) are mapped and breeder seed are procured for all the crops and
farmers are trained to produce and use their seed. In crops like paddy, groundnut where seed
requirement is high few farmers are identified at the village level to produce seed and make it
available to other farmers at a price.
Custom Hiring Centres: Implements for ploughing, sowing, weeding etc are made available
at the Village Organisation on a custom hiring basis. This improved the access of small and
marginal farmers to such implements.

NPM shops: to promote micro enterprises which can supply ecological farming inputs NPM
shops are promoted through PoP families. All NPM shop owners are trained on preparation
of botanical extracts and loan is facilitated from MMS to establish NPM shops. So far 1944,
NPM shops were established across the project implementation area. The income from NPM
shops ranges from Rs.1500/- during the peak season to Rs.500/- in lean season.

The Community Seed Banks, Custom Hiring Centres for Implements and NPM shops work
as network to share surpluses with others when needed.

Reaching out to the poorest

Often agriculture related interventions tend to naturally work mainly with those farmers
owning land, and who have more resources and time, and less afraid to take risks. Based on
the learnings from the CMSA, two initiatives were developed to improve household food
security of the poorest of the poor - who form 34.7 % of the SHG groups promoted by SERP
- and to address rainfed areas which form 58 % of the cultivated land in the state.

a. Strategy to support Poorest of the Poor (PoP) 2: With poorest of the poor, who have
very few assets and form the lowest rung of the poverty ladder, being the main focus
of the State, SERP initiated to facilitate PoP to adopt CMSA in at least 0.5 acre of
land. Land leasing is facilitated for the landless. In this 0.5 acre land, SRI Paddy
cultivation is taken up in 0.25 acre and a seven tier polycrop model (ranging from
tuber crops to fruit crops, vegetables, pulses, serials etc) in the remaining 0.25 acres
(popularly called as 36 x 36 m model). During 2009-10, 251 models each of 0.5 acres
(0.25 acre of multiple vegetables and 0.25 acre of SRI Paddy) were established under
PoP strategy which gave an income ranging from Rs. 15,000 to 40,000 based on the
cropping pattern and time of sowing. This model provides food and income round the
year. Last two years data shows that a net income up to Rs.50, 000 in a year is
possible along with improved household food and nutritional security. See Case study
box below.

b. Rainfed Sustainable Agriculture (RFSA) in convergence with Mahatma Gandhi

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS): To make the
most of possible synergies between generating employment, sustainable land
improvement, and drawing on existing government resources, comprehensive soil and
moisture conservation works to improve the land of PoP were initiated converging
with the MGNREGS from 2009-10. In the first year it covered 3.19 lakh acres of
1.46 lakh SC/ST farmers 2009-10. The works includes farm ponds, conservative
furrows, trenches, compost pits, and vegetable mini kits and fruit plants. The total
amount to be spent in one acre of land is Rs.40, 000/-. Total out lay for the year 2010-
11 is Rs.1630 crores covering 10 lakh acres in 22 districts. So far technical sanctions
2
POP are identified through the process of Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP) which
involves several processes like Social Mapping, Resource Mapping, Door to Door interaction,
Wealth Ranking, etc. according to the village situation who are poor and the poorest of the poor
among the community.
 are accorded for Rs.804 crores and administrative sanctions are accorded for Rs.645
crores and RFSA works are grounded in 3,034 villages out of 3,332 villages. The
final results are still awaited.

Case Study of Smt. M. Bojamma: Journey of an ultra poor family from “wage seekers”
to “net food producers”
 Smt. M.Bojjamma is a landless agriculture worker from Thadakanaplle village of Kallur
mandal in Kurnool district.
 She hails from a Poorest of the Poor family, her husband working in a stone crusher unit
 She got interested about the sustainable agriculture listening to the Cluster Activist in the VO
meeting and wanted to try out.
 Village Organization provided a loan amount of Rs.7,000/- for leasing in 0.5 Acre of land with
assured irrigation for one year (two seasons) in 2009.
 She attended all the training programs and enrolled for the farmer field school. She learned
about Sustainable Agriculture methods, growing multistory cropping system and SRI –
resulting in a diverse crop (see table below)
 During Rabi, 2009 she took up only vegetables. Her costs of cultivation were Rs. 3000 and
earned Rs. 26,500. The combined net incomes were Rs. 28,800 (kharif) + Rs. 23,500 (rabi) -
Rs.7,000 (Land rental) =Rs. 45,300.

Following is the income and expenditure details from June to December (Kharif season), 2009:

S.N Name of the Yield in Kgs Price Gross Cost of cultivation in Rs. Net
o crop income (excluding family labour) income
in Rs.
Leafy
vegetables
1 Spinach beet 300 bundles 3 900 Amount in 19500
2 Sorrel 400 bundles 3 1200 Paid out costs Rs.
3 Fenugreek 400 bundles 2 800 Vegetable seeds 500
Ploughing 2000
4 Amaranthus 300 bundles 3 900
Farm yard manure 500
Vegetables
Ghanajeevamruta
5 Okra 200 15 3000 m 300
6 Brinjal 400 15 6000 Dravajeevamrutam 300
(Aubergine) Botanical extracts 200
7 Tomato 150 10 1500 White yellow
8 Onion 150 20 3000 plates 100
9 Bitter gourd 80 15 1200 Pheromone Traps 100
10 Ridge gourd 100 15 1500 Paddy seeds 200
11 Raddish 100 10 1000 Total 4200/-
12 Chillies 80 15 1200
22200
13 SRI Paddy 9qtls 1200 10800 9300
in 0.25 Acres
33000 4200 28800
* Ghanajeevamrutham and Dravajeevamrutham are preparations using cow dung and other locally available
material.
Scale of the Intervention:

CSA provided handholding support to the program till 2007-08. The program was built in a way that
it would be managed by the SHG groups.

Impacts

The Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture is a comprehensive package and bringing

together of several ecological farming practices. The enabling strength of the Women Self
Help Group institutional platform has facilitated rapid spread of these practices. There have
been a range of important impacts to farmers and poor rural households:

 Reductions in costs of cultivation due to NPM are reported by all the farmers. The
savings in costs range from Rs. 3000/acre in paddy, redgram to Rs. 15,000/acre in
chillies.
 A quick survey by SERP in three districts has shown that the number of cases of
hospitalisation due to pesticide poisoning has reduced from 242 cases/year to 146
cases/year a 40 percent drop in a year. In the villages which have adopted NPM the
drop is 100 per cent.
 Unlike the popular argument that pest outbreaks could happen, villages adopting
NPM have not seen pest outbreaks caused due to ecological disturbance or pest
resistance. Farmers could effectively manage rice blast using a fermented solution of
asafoetida, cow dung and urine (http://www.oryza.com/forums/showthread.php?
t=535), and sucking pests in cotton and chillies using similar methods.
 Where organic soil management practices are adopted, the increased soil moisture
conservation has helped to tide over drought spells for about 10 days more.
Encouraged by this, integrated effort to physically conserve water with in the field by
adopting conservation furrows, trenches and farm ponds was initiated.
 Efforts to internalise the seed production at community level particularly in crops like
paddy, groundnut have shown positive results.
 AP produces and exports most of the chillies in the country. High pesticide residues
often have led to the rejection of the exports chillies and products using chillies. The
chillies produced in Guntur district adopting NPM practices were tested for pesticide
residues and were found to be in accordance with EUROGAP standards.
 During 2009-10, more than 7638 farmers (in addition to the 251 who come under PoP
strategy) were supported to establish Intensive Farming System model in 36 x 36 m which
produce food round the year with a combination of seasonal and perennial crops. The net
incomes from these models ranged from Rs. 4000 to 12,000 in addition to meeting the
family food needs.
 The CMSA approach enables bundling of various relevant services to farmer families,
including credit access on the doorstep. Ultimately, the approach involves facilitating
development of micro-credit plans for sustainable agriculture and linking farmers to
commercial banks, especially where this related to marketing needs. Access to banks for
farming reduced as the focus shited to the poorest of the poor, who depended more on the
group credit system. CMSA approach also facilitates the farmer’s access to high quality
inputs through a network of community seed banks and agricultural implements from
Custom Hiring Centers run by the Federations of Women Self Help Groups.
 Ramachandrapuram: Land taken out from mortgage.
Julurpadu Mandal, Khammam District

Ramachandrapuram is a small village in Julurpadu mandal of Khammam dist. Predominantly a tribal

village was under severe distress in 2004 when the program began. A quiet village with about seventy
five farm families cultivating about 400 acres of land had all the cultivated land mortgaged to money
lenders. After the CMSA began in the village, slowly farmers repaid the loans and got back their lands.
Today entire village could have their lands back. The village is now included under ‘Total Financial
Inclusion’ (all credit needs are met through the bank linkages and other old high interest debts were also
swapped against SHG loan) which will further help in improving the village economy.

Scheduled Tribe Farmers, Land Mortgage Status and Adoption of NPM

This is a confusing table, try to make the labels more clear

Year Land Mortgaged prior to Land recovered from Land Leased in for
2004* Mortgage after 2004 Cultivation
No. of Area in No. of Area in No. of Area in
Farmers Acres Farmers Acres Farmers Acres
2004 68 147.5 -- -- -- --
2005 35 85.5 33 62 -- --
2006 -- -- 35 85.5 -- --
2007 -- -- -- -- 9 15
*Mortgaged to Moneylenders / input dealers
Source: Case Study of Ramachandrapuram Village in Julurupadu Mandal of Khammam District in AP.,
CMSA, IKP, Hyderabad, 2007.
Observations on benefits and strengths of the program

 Getting out of pesticide poisoning is seen as a major benefit for the farmers. They clearly
recognise and acknowledge that their health has significantly improved and the health costs
have come down after adoption of NPM. While there is considerable scope to generally
increase wider awareness on the benenfits of appropriate use and correct application of
pesticides and fertilizers, the NPM interventions have demonstrated the effectiveness of
using local resources and preventive measures.
 The ecological farming practices like NPM, organic soil management, multiple cropping
models, SRI etc., have been adopted by the farmers to a considerable extent. The Farmer
Field School approaches to build the capacity and the confidence being part of the group
have proven to be very useful in promoting such practices. The risk of failure of such
practices is also very low which make them easy to try. Even partial adoptions give benefit
to the farmers.
 Community management with FFS, CRPs, VOs and Mandal federations, has built in more
ownership on the program - as explained above under the roles of the institutions of the
poor.
 Practices involving heavy earthen works like farm ponds, conservative furrows and trenches
need more capacity building for the staff and labour involved. As the risk of failure of such
models being high, more adaptation to local situations is needed and have a good capacity
building plan for the people involved.
 Convergence of various interventions of IKP such as marketing, dairy along with CMSA will
provide additional benefits. From this year IKP are to be planning this.
 Convergence with line departments (Department of Agriculture, Department of Animal
Husbandry) still seems to be a distant possibility due to rigid compartmentalisation of their
working. However discussions have with agencies have been undertaken to increase
integration and linkages.
 The Community Resource Person based extension is working well for horizontal expansion of
the program. Involving some more experienced resource organisations at state and district
level will be important to strengthen the program.
 Till now the program is implemented through the Women’s Self Help Groups and their
Federations. These institutions which are formed for thrift and credit, have shown that they
can form an important platform for farming families. They can also then potentially form the
springboard where by farming families can be organised into cooperatives for more focussed
work along the value chain.
 There has been a range of impacts of considerable importance to poor rural households in
AP, summarised as follows:

Economic Benefits Ecological Benefits

 Lower cost of production & substantial  Better soil health, water

statewide savings conservation
 Yield maintained or increased  Conservation of agro-biodiversity
 Higher household income  Fewer pesticide related health
 Lower Debt problems
 Higher cropping intensity  Smaller carbon footprint as a result
 Lower risk perception and higher of reduced use and production of
investment in agriculture inorganic fertilisers
 Business innovation and new livelihood
opportunities
 AP s the only state which showed the reduction in pesticide use in the country in the last five
years. Even when compared with the states growing Bt cotton or using low volume
insecticides.
Pesticide use across states 2005-06 to 2009-10

S.No. States/UTs 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

1 Andhra Pradesh 1997 1394 1541 1381 1015

2 Gujarat 2700 2670 2660 2650 2750

3 Haryana 4560 4600 4390 4288 4070

4 Jammu & Kashmir 1433 829 1248 2679.27 1640

5 Karnataka 1638 1362 1588 1675 1647

6 Kerala 571 545 780 272.69 631

7 Madhya Pradesh 787 957 696 663 645

8 Maharashtra 3198 3193 3050 2400 4639

9 Orissa 963 778 N/A 1155.75 1588

10 Punjab 5610 5975 6080 5760 5810

 11 Rajasthan 1008 3567 3804 3333 3527

12 Tamil Nadu 2211 3940 2048 2317 2335

13 Uttar Pradesh 6671 7414 7332 8968 9563

14 West Bengal 4250 3830 3945 4100 NA

  Total in India (in 39773 41515 43630 43860 41822

round fig.)

Source: http://ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides.htm MT of active ingredient

Crops Reduction in cost due to Reduction in costs due to use of organic Net additional
NPM (Rs) fertilisers/manures (Rs) income (Rs)

Paddy 940 1450 5590

Maize 1319 2357 5676

Cotton 1733 1968 5676

Chillies 1733 1968 7701

Groundnut 1021 3462 10483

Vegetables 1400 390 3790

Source: 3rd Party Evaluation of Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) : Community Managed Organic
Farming implemented by SERP by Prof. R. Ratnakar, Director, Dr. M. Surya Mani, Professor,
EXTENSION EDUCATION INSTITUTE, (Southern Region), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India