 ID : 85303
Ajouté le : 2005-07-21 10:19
Mis à jour le : 2005-07-21 10:20
Refreshed: 2012-02-11 23:32
|
|
| Rebuilding the genetic resource base through farmer-scientist-activist alliance |
Document(s) 36 de 38
Major challengesDuring the past decade, Third World governments have come under considerable pressure to promote policies and practices which further western-oriented agriculture. The support from the World Bank, IMF and other bilateral aid agencies to the third world governments, agriculture research, education and extension agencies has completely wiped out the indigenous initiatives for biodiversity which existed before 1960. The top scientists from all over the world were encouraged to promote high-input agriculture. The scientists and extension agencies had no discretion power and were obliged to implement top-down programs and prescriptions. In fact, in the initial stages, during the 1960s and 70s, farmers virtually revolted in different parts of India in order to counter the advice of the extension agency. However, through liberal subsidies and loaning programs from the cooperative and commercial banks, the extension agency was able to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of chemical agriculture. At present, scientists in agriculture research centers and agriculture universities are deeply wedded to the idea of the invincibility of high-input agriculture for continuing sustained growth in food production. Hence, we have reached a critical stage where scientists and the policy makers do not appreciate the idea of rebuilding agriculture based on indigenous wisdom and knowledge. Major initiatives in restoring biodiversityThe author's close interaction with Dr. Richharia, a well-known rice scientist from Bhopal, has revealed the following insights: - Even before the introduction of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) varieties by the Government of India, Dr. Richharia was able to undertake experimentation on the local high yielding varieties of rice. He was able to place the facts and figures about the superiority of selected local varieties as compared to the high yielding exotic varieties. During 1965, the eminent authorities in Indian agriculture ridiculed his ideas and he was not given the support to continue his experiments.
- The Madhya Pradesh government offered him facilities to continue his experiments related to biodiversity in rice. In his enthusiasm to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of indigenous varieties, Dr. Richharia collected more than 20,000 local varieties. But Dr. Richharia could not withstand the onslaughts of the Green Revolution mentality which is based on monoculture.
- Dr. Richharia advocated (and still advocates) the idea of Walking Gene Banks. He himself travelled on foot to remote tribal areas to collect interesting and high performance rice varieties. Since he had no support either from the scientific community nor from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), he could not continue his experiments.
- During the past four years, Dr. Richharia has assisted an NGO based in Kurzat near Bombay. Within their program, he has trained farmers representatives to identify and collect rice varieties from Maharastra. He has helped them select certain varieties which were of interest to farmers themselves. The scientific guidance and support from Dr. Richharia has enabled the farmer representatives to develop indigenous varieties of rice through the clonal propagation method. Karzat has been an important learning center where the farmers themselves have become strong advocates for promoting and sustaining biodiversity.
- According to Dr. Richharia, although monoculture has done major damage to the biodiversity in India, he feels that the illiteracy, ignorance and backwardness of farmers have remained as a boon. The country has not lost all its biodiversity. If concerted efforts are made by the scientists, activists and farmers, it might be possible to retrieve the indigenous genetic wealth.
Philippines' experiences in promoting biodiversityWhen IRRI was celebrating its silver jubilee functions, a big procession was held by farmers to protest against the irreparable damage that IRRI operations have effected in the Philippines. According to them, due to the presence of IRRI, the Government of the Philippines completely abandoned its independent research on rice cultivation. Further, it started replicating the ideas of IRRI for promoting monoculture. Initially for the first seven or eight years, the country obtained bumper crops and they could export rice to other countries. However, they started to witness steep decline in the rice production and the country had to import rice. Hence the farmers organizations sought support from highly committed scientists from the agriculture research stations. The farmers organizations conducted independent research in 20 center, and a number of scientists, deeply wedded to the interests of the farmers, joined the movement. The network in the Philippines is in a position to provide necessary inputs for participatory research on sustainable agriculture. Initiatives of the Indian Rural Reconstruction Movement (IRRM)Since 1988, IRRM has developed active linkages with Dr. Richharia, Pat Mooney, and outstanding farmers interested in sustainable agriculture in South India. Initially IRRM planned to work with farmers directly. The support of outstanding farmers in sustainable agriculture was obtained for training the farmers. Very soon IRRM realized that it is very difficult to withstand the onslaughts of the extension agency because of the power that they process. Hence IRRM started interacting with the agricultural scientists from the regional research station, Tirupati, and the teaching staff of the agriculture college, Tirupati. Since the college of agriculture, Tirupati, has introduced a separate paper on sustainable agriculture, the author took the initiative to introduce case studies on the work of sustainable agricultural practitioners. The farmers were invited to give special guest lectures on their experiments to promote sustainable agriculture and biodiversity. For the first time in the history of the college, the scientists listened to the views of the farmers, and the scientists networked in Chittoor district for designing and developing agriculture based on farmers' wisdom, with a scientific outlook. ConclusionTo preserve and promote biodiversity it is necessary to tap the potentials of NGOs who have the commitment to work with farmers' organizations in identifying, preserving and enriching genetic wealth. It is necessary to obtain the support of well-intentioned and committed scientists for strengthening the work. A strong alliance of scientists, farmers, and activists is the only solution for reconstructing the genetic resource potential. The results could be achieved by organizing the work in different agro-climatic regions of India. Simultaneous work has to be initiated in order to counter the dominance of mainstream agriculture.
Document(s) 36 de 38
|
|
