| dc.description.abstract | Farmers and others at the grassroots level in India and many other developing countries are known to experiment and innovate to come up with their own solutions to problems faced by them in the field of agriculture. However their innovations have not received the kind of attention they deserve, either from policy makers or agricultural scientists. In the context of growing environmental problems both at the global and local levels and the emerging chal-lenge of sustainability, the experience and contributions of grassroots innovators, may prove invaluable in making the transition to sustainable agriculture in particular and sustainable development in general. This realisation motivated me to take up a study of innovators atttmpting to develop eco-friendly technologies at the grassroots level. I selected twenty innovations from Western India (Gujarat and Maharashtra states), in the field of agricultural pest man¬agement, for detailed case study.
Non-chemical methods of pest control in the field of agriculture have been in use for centuries. However, in the war against pests man has increasingly come to rely on chemical methods. In India, chemical control, promoted by the state, has become the dominant pest management strategy, since the adoption of green revolution technology. The intensive use of pesticides in certain green revolution pockets has generated localised as well as non-localised environmental externalities. This has triggered what is known in pest management literature as the ·pesticide treadmill-, The treadmill is forcing fanners to spend more and more on pes¬ticides achieving less and less control. It is also contributing to the overall long term decline in farm productivity. Of equal concern, is the creation of new health hazards for both sentient and human life forms.
In the face of the emerging crisis, the response of policy makers can be described as one of ·disjointed incrementalism -. A few ad-hoc measures have been taken to ban and/or restrict the use of some of the more hazardous pesticides. Some progress has been made in developing Integrated Pest Management (lPM) strategies, identifying agents for biological control of pests and in breeding of disease and pest resistant varieties. However the over-all thrust of the policy continues to favor chemical pesticides. The national pesticide consumption for the current decade (1991 to 200)) is expected to grow at an annual rate of 4 percent. On the other hand, the rates at which eco-friendly technologies for pest management are being generated by formal research institutions appear to fall far below the requirements.
The aim of the study was to identify the heuristics used by grassroots innovators in the process of innovation and to explore their potential in predicting the outcome of innovations from the view-point of sustainability. (Heuristics, have been defined as thumb-rules for decision making or guiding principles used in creative problem solving). A case cluster method was used to analyze the heuristics. Some of the key findings are summarized:
a) Heuristics of Innovation:
The analysis revealed four distinct models or approaches to innovation for sustainable pest management. These approaches involve finding: i) non-chemical, non-biological substi¬tutes for chemical pesticides,' it) methods that stimulate growth and/or build the immunity of crop plants against pests; iii) methods that exploit inter-species relationships to control pests; and iv) methods that restore the agro-ecological balance and build the resilience of the system.
These approaches differ not only in the guiding principles used but also in their likely impact on eco-systems. The impact could be benign. restorative or augmentative. The extent 0/ sustainability of outcomes would depend upon the nature of impact as well as the extent of diffusion over space and time.
Worldview and contextual variables were found to be the major influences on the heu¬ristics of innovation. Two worldview variables (ideological and analytical orientations of the innovators) were found to explain most of the differences between the four groups. Contextual variables (ecological. economic and social) were more helpful in explaining the variance within the groups. They were also helpful in explaining the behavior of the odd case in which the innovator was found to use a heuristic not consistent with his/her ideological and analytical orientations.
The study suggests that solutions generated by fanners and other grassroots innovators, can be an important source for augmenting farmers' choices in attaining sustainable pest management. The variability in the process of innovation and the corresponding variability in potential for generating sustainable outcomes provides the basis for proposing an agenda for policy change. Both short term as well as long term measures at macro and micro levels have been suggested. At the implementation level, suggestions for support institutions have been made with regard to : i) spotting, stimulating and supporting of grassroots innovators.. ii) Validation of and value addition to grassroots innovations; iii) augmentation of quality supply of inputs through promotion of ecopreneurship at the grassroots level,. and iv) augmentation of demand for such technology by linking organic producers with green (eco-conscious) consumers. | |
