The Great Indian Livelihood Tamasha

Open Letter to Mr. Jairam Ramesh on National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM)

Dear Minister Jairam Ramesh

Over the last 67 years independent India has seen several avatars of poverty alleviation programmes in rural areas. These have ranged from independent and disconnected income-generation programmes aimed at the poor (defined by a “line”) and marginal communities to more “broad spectrum” employment generation programmes, with MGNREGS being the most recent. Individual Ministries and Departments have also ostensibly pursued the same goals albeit in a compartmentalised, fragmented manner. The design of these programmes and the measure of effectiveness for all these programmes have been defined by “outsiders¹”. What has been missing and continues to be missing are the experiences and articulations of the people whose poverty is to be alleviated.

The diversity of culture, ways of life, ecology, knowledge, experiences etc., in India, where settled agricultural and animal herding communities go back several thousand years,have led rural communities to adapt to the vagaries of nature and circumstance and shape distinct and unique livelihood strategies. Shouldn’t all these programmes at “alleviating” poverty from the outside at least recognise this diversity by accessing this experience and contextualising the issue(s) before action that is relevant follows? Extending the question asked by the poet and scholar A.K. Ramanujan “Is there an Indian Way of Thinking?” let us begin to ask – isn’t it time to develop the Indian way of livelihoods?²

In focusing on imported solutions and approaches and by adopting “one size fits all” solutions we have become obsessed with words such as “models”, “scale up”, “beneficiary”, “intervention”, “imparting skills” etc. All of this stems from a complete lack of understanding of rural reality, the complexities of livelihoods and the interdependencies which are implicitly given in livelihood practitioners. The failure to acknowledge indigenous knowledge base has led to two tragic realities (i) rural communities have lost their sense of ownership and understanding of their surroundings and resources and (ii) lost their traditional democratic spaces where decision making on resource sharing and management used to be done. A more dangerous development has been a hijacking of these traditional spaces by political interests.

With the announcement of the NRLM, “livelihoods” has entered Government developmentspeak. Let us for a moment assume that the recognition of “livelihoods” by Government through a formal programme is a welcome change in itself from fragmented – income, employment, poverty line based – approaches. What is one to expect from this programme?

A review of the mission of the NRLM shows presence of the same old vocabulary. E.g. “ enabling the states to formulate their own livelihoods-based poverty reduction action plans” where are the people in this? Shouldn’t the task be to provide an enabling environment so people can practice their livelihoods which will help them adapt to the changing ecological environment? The mission statement also states “imparting requisite skills and creating linkages with livelihoods opportunities for the poor”. Shouldn’t the aim be to revive skills or provide conditions that will let the livelihood skills emerge? Who is imparting what skills and to who?

If we want this programme to truly transform the lives of several generations of rural Indians (and by extension urban Indians as well) the design and approach of the programme needs to be reviewed.

The design of the NRLM programme must be based on the lessons learnt from the green, blue and white revolution which addressed specific needs of the time but had serious long-term problems. One of the main reasons for the long-term damage was the complete lack of understanding of the importance of diversity in rural livelihoods leading to a systematic erosion of diversity in livestock breeds, crop diversity, marine diversity, traditional medical knowledge and destruction of common property resources.

Unlike programmes like MGNREGA and other employment wage oriented programmes NRLM’s focus is livelihoods and their sustainability. This necessarily means reaching out to successive generations, which in turn requires that rural ecosystems are made resilient. To realise this vision, NRLM must ensure not just conservation but rejuvenation of diversity.

• Livelihoods are location specific. Diversity (ecological, cultural, economic and social), which accords resilience to these communities, must be conserved and rejuvenated at all costs in the design and implementation of this programme;
• Rural households earn their living through multiple and diverse ways – a portfolio of livelihood strategies. The programme must therefore focus on providing an enabling environment so that the decision on, which portfolio of strategies to use when, is made by the communities in question. E.g., conservation and regeneration of CPRs will need to be the focus of the programme in dryland areas since that is the basis of livelihoods there. The focus in the forest areas will need to be to ensure that the ROFR, 2006 is effectively implemented;
• Recognise the strength of traditional democratic spaces and let them form the basis of the village level institutions and wherever these spaces have been completely lost, revive them in a manner relevant to current circumstances.

Effective implementation rests on assessing whether livelihoods have truly been impacted. This can be effected only with robust and relevant metrics which are a critical element of programme design. The primary developers of the metrics and criteria for measuring impact and effectiveness of actions must be the rural community that is being impacted. Civil Society (including academia, NGOs, research institutions) may serve as facilitators in helping to articulate and documenting these metrics.

In terms of its approach, the NRLM programme must be such that it “stitches together” various disparate, programmes and policies that are underway in the rural environment. It must aim to be the grand unifier that stimulates the inherent diversity of rural livelihoods. This will require convergence of Government programmes particularly those that are engaged in the management of natural resources notably, IWMP, livestock, agriculture, water resources, land and forest management. Convergence must be supported with a reorientation and transformation of some of these programmes particularly the IWMP³ so that they can support the NRLM in bringing about “appreciable improvement in (their) livelihoods on a sustainable basis.⁴”

The heart of the programme must be the rural community, particularly the youth. As mentioned earlier “outsiders” must serve as facilitators who learn from the people on the ground and simultaneously build up a knowledgebase of resources for the future. What they should facilitate must be articulated from the grassroots. Decision making on livelihood strategies is and must be the prerogative of the rural communities.

Capacity building of rural communities must be left to institutions like Barefoot College, Thulir, Gandhigram and several others who can play a transformative role. Design for rural education must be drawn from the efforts and examples of people like M.G. Jackson and others who have developed and implemented effectively in Uttarakhand so that we have a new generation of youth who understand livelihoods and rural reality.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing that urgent action needs to be taken to build the NRLM from the bottom up by listening to, understanding, learning from and working with rural communities. For the first time in the history of independent India, let us all be accountable to rural communities and let them assess whether their livelihoods have truly been made sustainable. Let us work towards bringing back democracy to grassroots institutions.

1“Outsiders” include NGOs, academics, Government and others who are not from these rural communities.

2Ramanujan, A.K. 1989. Is there an Indian Way of thinking? An Informal Essay. Downloadable at: http://silk.arachnis.com/anthro/Is_there_an_Indian_Way_of_Thinking_An_Informal_Essay.pdf

3Detailed and relevant recommendations from Hanumantha Rao (2000) and the Parthasarthy Committee (2006), if used to reorient the IWMP will go a long way in bringing the much needed connection to livelihoods.

4Quoting from the NRLM’s articulated mission and objectives.

Silent Revolutions in the face of Doublespeak…….and a few more questions???

The irony of Government (which is supposed to work for the common good) never fails to surprise me. An Act of Parliament has recognised the rights of access of traditional forest dwellers to forests. In spite of this the Union Minister of Tribal Affairs V Kishore Chandra Deo has to urge CMs (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/cms-urged-to-implement-forest-rights-act-sincerely/article4605291.ece) to implement the FRA sincerely! This appeal had to be made after the Act has been diluted significantly with the recent amendment through which “linear” infrastructure projects will be exempted from Gram Sabha decisions under the FRA. Juxtapose this appeal from the Union Minister with the creation of the National Investment Board (NIB) or a Cabinet Committee on Investments (as it is now being called) and then the comment by the Prime Minister about making development sustainable. The cherry on this flipflop, schizophrenic doublespeak  is the rolling out of the NRLM programme by the Ministry of Rural Development while the same Government is rapidly moving forward to sign the FTA with the EU. How can livelihoods be promoted if common pool resources are not provided access to, conserved and regenerated? Can a Government that is talking about carte blanche environmental clearances also protect livelihoods?

In the face of all this doublespeak small and marginal communities in various pockets across the country are forging their own futures using their traditional community networks. A small community of pastoralists have been asserting their rights of access to grazing and minor forest produce in our corner of Rayalseema since 2009. They did this by organising themselves into a sangha with a little help from a few of us. This exercising of rights has slowly spread to other communities within a radius of over 100 km through family connections, word of mouth etc. The strength that it has given them has spurred other pastoralists to stand up and assert their rights. The pastoralists in our area are now coaching and counselling others on the provisions of the FRA and how to put together documentation. The only question that keeps coming back to me is how did all these communities suddenly come together? Why did they come together 3-4 years after the enactment of the FRA? Nobody communicated the Act to all these communities. Information was shared with one community by a few of us which then spread like wildfire. I think it was more effective because those who experienced the freedom that comes with asserting one’s rights were able to share their personal experience. It made me think of Ostrom, Wade, and the theories of collective governance. There are many questions that have emerged from this experience. Now that the rights have been asserted will the responsibility of taking care and regenerating these commons come with it? At one of the meetings a fire guard (working as a contractor for the Forest Department) who is from the same village asked a question “Why do they not come when I call them to put out the fire inspite of offering them Rs. 150 per head?” “What is the guarantee that they will protect the forest now?” The community’s response was “we pay those Forest Dept. guards one lamb / kid and Rs. 50 per animal so they should protect the forest. Why should we?”  “But now when we don’t pay the Forest Dept., it is our responsibility to care of the forest and we will” Decades of a governance system that has eroded a sense of ownership from the communities cannot be fixed with the stroke of a pen but there is hope that once the oppression is lifted through the assertion of rights the ownership will come!

Water …..what is its real value?

In this era of climate change all of us behave like the English – we discuss the weather a lot, more specifically the monsoon. The south-west monsoon which has been playing truant this year has decided to drench some parts of the country and pass  others by leaving communities reeling in drought. In our part of the world the monsoon has been watering our land like the proverbial gardner – rain-fed crops like groundnut and millets seem happy but we are not sure what our potable water situation is going to be like for the next month.  Borewells continue to dry up even as new ones are being drilled. Small and marginal farmers are spending anywhere from Rs. 1-2 lakhs to drill a borewell hoping and praying that it will not turn up dry…..sucking them further into the quicksand of debt while they continue to look for that elusive groundwater that they hope will help pay off their debt.

Communities in search of alternatives to the drying public potable water wells either take water from obliging neighbours who have borewells that are still yielding water or are at the mercy of the Government. Rural water supply departments try and drill yet another borewell as an emergency source of water. The well hits water and everyone is happy. A precariously rigged up electrical connection provides much needed electricity to power the motor that draws water from the well. This is where the question of the real value of water needs to be asked. As the water comes gushing out of the ground people queue up to fill their pots and pans while the erratic electrical supply lasts. Between successive pots the water flows onto the street wasted! The Government or the community does not even consider setting up a holding tank to collect this flowing water that in this water scarce area is like blood pouring from an open wound. It is nobody’s problem. Who will pay to set up some sort of temporary storage? Every solution is adhoc and temporary till the next emergency!! Why can’t we have prescribed guidelines and pre-cast systems to make water available efficiently in water scarce areas? The Government’s norms and guidelines for water supply and sanitation have detailed drawings of toilets, rooftop rainwater harvesting systems….why not groundwater based emergency rural water supply systems? Do we not have the wherewithal or technology to supply water under drought condition without it gushing out of a borewell into drains?  As communities we come together when we don’t have water. What will it take for us to come together to  set up a simple solution to stop this precious resource from flowing away? The new borewell dries up and the story is repeated.

This time around there is another option – water tankers to tide over the emergency condition. What is the cost of this tanker of water – Rs. 280 for a 5000 litre tanker. How can water be sold at such a low price when we are in a drought condition? Nobody has a real answer. Mango orchard farmers in Chittoor have high yielding borewells and they are able to provide their surplus water for tankers OR Not sure where the water is coming from OR How does it matter, let’s just be happy that we are getting this water now. Once we have a good rain the water situation will improve. How long will it be before what is an “emergency condition” today becomes the norm?

A new Water Policy has been drafted in 2012 for the country with very little attention being paid to groundwater and its management. Groundwater  is the main source of water for most of our rural and urban areas – definitely the only source of water for rain-fed agricultural areas. When will we as a country and a society realise the real value of water? When will we collectively rise up and empower ourselves to treat this resource as it should be?

Gangamma and Rain……..where the “rationalist” and the believer’s lives intertwine..

The Dravidian Goddess Gangamma is believed to be the symbol of water and is the chief goddess of the shepherd. Water shapes land and life in the Rishi Valley as it does everywhere in the world where lives and livelihoods are close to the elements. So when the rain gods desert us or when the monsoon plays truant as it has been this year, Gangamma is called upon by her believers more often than the once a year “jatra”. She speaks through her oracle, directing her believers to take action that will appease the elements and bring rain. Sometimes it can mean realigning rocks and at other times it could require shifting the location of a deity’s shrine. In a land where water was, is and always will be the defining resource, these dictates of Gangamma are taken very seriously.

What is interesting is that we urban “visitors” in this rural landscape (even if some of us have lived here for more than 30 years) , we who consider ourselves rationalists find our lives intertwined with that of our neighbours in this “thirst” for water and the rain.  Gangamma recently directed her believers to shift the location of a deity outside the valley if we were to be blessed with rain. After much deliberation the decision was made to shift the deity and this would cost money. Some of the women farmers with whom I was having a rambling conversation about life, the universe and everything else remarked that they will have to collect contributions. To which I said that when they were already in debt because of poor rains where would they find the money for this and why not use the money for something else that would bring food into their home. The response was – we know these are superstitions but it is our superstition! Let us appease Gangamma. Lo and behold the next day we had our first set of showers! and the faith in Gangamma becomes stronger.

The goddess reigns supreme, mobile phone toting shepherds graze their flock on hillocks and in its midst is a rationalist  philosophy driven urban community. Life in this rural corner of Rayalseema continues with never a dull moment. What a  microcosm of India this is……

The Myth of Food Inflation – The Reality about Milk

There is a myth that is being perpetuated about the rising food prices which needs a serious reality check. Policy papers, Government reports, policy briefs by international development agencies constantly declare that the rise in per capita income in India has led to a rise in demand for high value products such as milk and milk products. The article in the Hindu Business Line, July 6, 2012 by Sthanu Nair and Leena Mary Eapen has provides valuable insights into this myth but does not speak adequately to the pricing fiasco that is prevalent in the market. Let’s look at the reality on the ground from the supply side as far as milk is concerned. The information provided below are facts based on the writer’s personal work with small and marginal farmers in a rain fed community in Rayalseems. The reason the reality is embedded in small and marginal farmers is because they contribute to 80% of the milk production in this country.

Fact 1: Cost of milk production in rainfed areas by small and marginal farmers can range from Rs. 19 per litre to Rs. 25 per litre depending on asset ownership. Farmers with land and access to water typically incur a lower cost of production than landless farmers with dairy cows.

Fact 2: Those who have exotic crossbred cattle (Holstein Friesian particularly) thrust upon them through Government subsidy and loan programmes (be it through women’s SHGs or other schemes) will incur high medical costs and high resource costs (water, feed, fodder). This is because these cows are not hardy like the native breeds and are susceptible to disease. In addition like the Green Revolution crops they require a lot of water – for drinking, washing and indirectly for green fodder. Small and marginal farmers owning these cattle are entrenched in debt-traps having to continuously service the loans which adds to the cost of milk production. (For more on the saga of exotic breeds and indigenous breeds see: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/loss-our-breeds).

Fact 3: This summer (2012 summer) the Syndicate of private dairies fixed prices as low as Rs. 16 to 18 per litre for wholesale purchase of milk. The prices were slashed from the winter rates of Rs. 19 to Rs. 21 per litre. The situation for the farmer is exacerbated since summer is when the cost of milk production is even higher due to lack of green fodder and inadequate water. This drives the farmer deeper into debt since the income from the sale of milk is significantly less than the cost of production of milk. The rationale provided by the dairies for the slash in prices in summer was a milk surplus.

Fact 4: Price of pasteurised milk in July in Andhra Pradesh however increased to Rs. 32-34 per litre for toned milk and Rs. 40-42 per litre for whole milk.

Given the facts above, Where is the supply constraint if there is a surplus?

Farmers are producing milk that meets the quality requirements in terms of fat and solids not fat (SNF), volume is being produced on the back of debts by these farmers, retail price of milk is shooting through the roof so Why are farmers and consumers the ones who are being hit?

The reality is that there is no supply constraint but it is the cartel of dairies and skewed Government policies on milk pricing that is placing both the farmer and the consumer in this “pseudo inflation” situation. Unless Government policies crack down heavily on regulation of milk prices people at two ends of the spectrum will continue to suffer – at one end the farmer who is going to run himself / herself to the ground entrenched in debt and at the other end the consumer whose income will never be enough.

The only entity in this that I can see is the winner is the milk processor and the policy makers who are blissfully oblivious of the ground reality.

Truly, if food consumption patterns have shifted and if there is a domestic demand shouldn’t the small and marginal dairy farmers at least be able to make both ends meet? Where is the inclusive growth and development in this scenario?

The Milky Way……caught in the Chakravyuha

We’ve all read / heard extensively about how the White Revolution or Operation Flood changed the face of milk production in India. Small milk producers in Gujarat and the rest of the country found their voice through the cooperative movement. More than 30 years after that “revolution” India is still the largest milk producing nation (17% of the world’s milk production according to NDDB reports from 2010-2011) but the small milk producers who contribute to 80% of the milk production in India are in debt traps and not a part of cooperatives that support livelihoods (for an incisive report on small farmers and global milk production see – http://www.grain.org/entries/4426-the-great-milk-robbery). What has happened?

As in agriculture so in dairying – skewed Government policies have contributed extensively to this situation. Exotic breeds of cattle more at home in the temperate climes of Western Europe were indiscriminately introduced into the country with the promise of 25-30 litres of milk production/day by each animal. Government programmes drove this into the homes of small farmers through captive channels like the women’s Self Help Groups. These resource intensive animals which require huge amounts of green fodder (grass), feed, water (for drinking and to be kept cool in the torrid heat of the Indian summer) became “white elephants” in the homes of small farmers. Not only did they require resources in the form of water and food but their medical costs were very high because these animals were more susceptible to diseases in the tropical conditions where they were introduced – purer the breed more susceptible it is to disease! In addition, cross-breeding them with native, hardy breeds led to destruction of the local gene pool of native cattle breeds. E.g., the Gir cow, a native of the Gujarat area, that reportedly produces 48-50 litres milk / day has pretty much vanished from India. The irony is that today we are importing the semen of the Brazilian Gir, which was developed locally from stock imported from India early last century, to revive the local Gir!! (see http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2010/09/holy-cows-acclaimed-abroad-despised-at.html).

This fascination with exotics has wreaked havoc on the largely rain-fed countryside with farmers being driven into debt traps. What has made the situation even worse is the pricing of milk. Most small farmers are pouring their milk to Government dairies where the price offered for milk has no relationship to the expenses incurred by the farmer in producing the milk. So the small farmer who is struggling to maintain this “white elephant” with the hope that it will produce the “promised” milk and bring money into the house is left watching the money slip from the dairy to the bank /money lender…..with this skewed price all he / she is doing is servicing loans. Where is the promised livelihood or “poverty alleviation” from dairying???

Summer is usually the time when milk demand is high and milk supply falls (lack of water and therefore not enough grass to feed the cow and so low milk yield). However this summer in parts of Chittoor and in Karnataka, milk availability has been high…why I am not sure. However, as a result Government dairies have a surplus and to disincentivize farmers from producing milk, dairies have slashed milk prices! The cow’s udder is not a tap that can be shut off! How will these small and marginal farmers particularly in rain-fed areas reeling with drought pay off those loans if they cannot sell the milk produced? The very same Government departments and dairies who promised loans and pushed small farmers into buying exotic cross-breeds (no subsidy if you do not buy a cross-breed!) do not want to touch the milk.

When is the Government and the Planning Commission going to wake up to the ground realities? Why are there no subsidies and no insurance facilities provided for local, hardy breeds of cattle? Why is the price of milk not linked to the cost of production of milk by the farmer? In the midst of this crisis the Government of India wants to throw open the dairying sector to the EU under the EU-India Free Trade Agreement. In one sweeping action this will destroy livelihoods and lives in rural India.

I think we should just close down all Government Departments / Ministries that ostensibly speak about rural development. This way at least people are not living with the illusion that we as a Nation are committed to “inclusive growth.”

Do we need to live with droughts?

An existentialist question or a rhetorical one? Come summer and everybody asks this question – more so in the “other India” – the one that is not part of the Indian growth train! The editorial in the current issue of Down to Earth (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/six-sins-make-drought-invincible) is a relevant read particularly the listing of “the six sins that make drought invincible”.

The two “sins” that I’d like to take forward for a discussion are the the fifth and sixth particularly in light of the Draft National Water Policy 2012 (available for downloading and comment at http://wrmin.nic.in/) currently under debate: The fifth sin – “we forget underground aquifers meet a considerable part of water demand. So we do not factor in the need for recharge of groundwater. Instead we extract more and more water, leading to scarcity”.  We seem to forget that we are largely a groundwater civilisation with groundwater meeting a large part of not just rural drinking and agricultural water but also urban potable water demands.  So unless groundwater management is made the centrepiece of this Policy we are not going to make a dent in addressing this problem.

We also forget that water is a common resource – while land can be owned by a private entity and a well on it may belong to the entity, the water below the land is not the private property of that individual / entity! Water is a universal right and therefore in spirit, letter and on the ground any water policy and resultant legislation must ensure  equity and social justice in the access to water. The doublespeak and schizophrenia in the Draft Water Policy is remarkable….the Preamble expounds the philosophy of social justice and equity while the body of the Policy advocates privatization as the panacea to the current water crisis. Nothing new here…..this schizophrenia is the norm be it the Food Security Bill, Land Acquisition Bill or the Water Policy.

The sixth sin  – “our inability to link investment in watershed and soil conservation to groundwater recharge. In the past few years, attention has been paid to building ponds and tanks and to protecting watersheds. But investment in these assets—coming largely through employment guarantee schemes—is hardly ever productive. The schemes provide jobs and do not care about the quality of the work. Watersheds are planted with trees but protection of trees is not ensured. The tank is desilted, but the channels or the catchment that bring water to the tank are not.” This country has been engaged in watershed management since 1880 with Government supported programmes coming into prominence since the 1950s. In spite of this vast body of experience we still do not link watershed management to groundwater conservation. Watershed development in some rain shadow areas has led to groundwater recharge BUT this has led to increased water withdrawal to irrigate water intensive crops leading to more severe depletion of the scarce groundwater resources in summer….yet another example of fragmented thinking – the hallmark of our Policy planning.

The agencies implementing these programme do not coordinate with local agricultural or livestock departments to support livelihoods that can be sustained in the long-term because of the improved groundwater resource.   E.g. as part of the activities under a watershed development programme provide support for rainfed crops such as millets. This could be in the form of access to hardy, local seed varieties, infrastructure to store, process and add value to the produce, creating local markets etc. Another e.g. could be to ensure that water-intensive white elephants (exotic breeds of cows that are best at home in the Netherlands) are not provided to landless women farmers in rain-fed areas!

Do we need NASA photos to tell us that groundwater levels are abysmal in the Gangetic plain thanks to the myopic agricultural and livestock policies?? And then we are shocked as a nation which passes when the next exciting bit of news appears on our 24×7 news.

To do anything seriously commonsensical about this our erstwhile leaders must find time in Parliament where they are so busy debating over “serious” issues such as the appropriateness of cartoons in textbooks.