1. Map different kinds of formal and informal (governmental) arrangements impacting the food system
Third-Sector (for-profit)-In-Formal: Role of NGOs
The AME Foundation is a resource organization, motivated by a deep-going concern for improving the farm livelihoods in fragile ecosystems. Thirty-five years ago, in 1982, AME was set up in the Netherlands, in response to worldwide concerns regarding environmental degradation, in the wake of the Green Revolution. It migrated to Pondicherry, India, in 1986, intensifying its hands-on training in sustainable agriculture. With a growing realization of the importance of rehabilitating the resources of poor farmers in fragile dry farming situations, it moved on to the Deccan Plateau, based in Bangalore, in 1994. AME was transformed into a charitable Indian Trust, as AME Foundation, in 2001. As a resource organization, it is now engaged in enabling interested agencies and farmers’ groups in promoting sustainable agriculture in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. (Gaiha, 2005)
AMEF is promoting Sustainable Agriculture in dry lands through combination of NRM and ICM practices on the same farm – rain water management, soil fertility improvement, diversified and improved cropping practices, supplemented by encouraging farmers to grow shrubs and trees on farm for meeting income, fodder and manorial needs. Most importantly, it is backed by farmer-centric learning processes like PTD & FFS and building rural youth as farm guides (Gaiha, 2005) . The AMEF is managed as a for-profit NGO, working in a co-existence power arrangement between the Community and the Market. The relationship is formal between farmers and the NGOs trainers, but informal between the NGO and the market, who is interested in the final products of the trainings, not the actual training.
SRI is another method coming out of the world of NGOs and Research Institutes. The System of Rice Intensification reduces labor and thus employment. With the commercialization of labor, farmers might have more negotiation power over laborers who will be in harsher competition for employment (Third-Sector[farmer]/Community) (Gathorne-Hardy et al., 2016). Yet, if seen in combination with the labor scarification due to rural exodus because of the loss of local employment (FAO, 2015) a higher wage-rate might just promote that same employment (Bhandari et al., 2017) the two informal relationships might therefore compensate and stabilize labor insecurities.
The incentives for SRI have led to the establishment of informal organizations (e.g. consortium on SRI). These organizations receive the support of Research Institutes (State) and the World Wildlife Fund (Third-Sector). Originally, antagonistic power plays between SRI dissenters and proponents brought the socio-technical methodology into the spot-light. Since then, governmental (State) adaptation of testing farms has brought SRI into policies, empowering SRI promoting organizations (Third-Sector/State) and creating a synergistic power relationship (Prasad, 2017).
A final example of power relationships is Navdanya, an NGO founded by Vandana Shiva, which focuses on biodiversity conservation through seed banks, organic agriculture, and food sovereignty. As an NGO that positions itself against industrial farming and its externalities - including GMO’s, monocultures, and an export focused production - Navdanya has an antagonistic relationship with the Corporate and State actors related to these fields. The NGO has also campaigned against the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement by the WTO, as it allows for the inclusion of life forms into patents. The relationship between Navdanya and the WTO is clearly informal - Navdanya simply puts pressure through their informal relationships with consumers through community education and awareness (Community/Third-Sector). The power relationship between the Corporations and the NGO can be both formal and informal, depending on the situation as the Corporations wish to maintain their public status and yet do not wish to alienate their consumer base.
State (non-profit)-Formal: Role of the Government
The National Food Security Bill (NFSB) aims to provide subsidized food grains to approximately two thirds of India's 1.2 billion people. Under the provisions of the bill, beneficiaries are able to purchase 5 kg per eligible person per month. These beneficiaries are culled from 75% of the rural and 50% of the urban population and are entitled for 3 years from enactment to 5 kg food grains per month at 3, 2, or 1 per kg for rice, wheat and coarse grains (millet), respectively. This is a formal relationship between the State and the Community, and influences the market as those products and profits need to be calculated and removed from public circulation before products are sent to market. In this arrangement, the power is a one-sided dependence with the State holding all the power.
A separate relationship can be seen within the NGO/Government paradigm. The Indian government, through its decentralized institutions (Province Ministries of Agriculture, the Irrigation Department, and funding programs like the NABARD)), and the World Wildlife Fund spreads SRI through the community. The aim of the program is to implement a ground-roots system of approach for SRI within the farming community. By subsidizing new implementations of SRI production in fields (through the NGO teachings), the Government is focusing on Socio-cultural and socio-technical dynamics. This program is non-binding by the government, focusing on a cooperative power relationship between all three actors: NGO/Farmer/Government (Prasad, 2016).
Third-Sector (for-profit)-Formal and Informal: Role of the Haryana Cooperative
The HAFED (The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited) is a cooperative focusing on the supply of agricultural inputs, making arrangement for marketing, processing of agricultural and allied products and facilitating the working of affiliated Co-operative Societies in the Haryana State of India. It falls within the Third-Sector role because it is a Private-commercial company (Market) that is also a Co-operative working with farmers (Community), and is a Nodal Agent of the State of Haryana (State).
As a company, HAFED has a direct, formal relationship with the government and is a prime example of a Private Public Partnership. The relationship with the State and HAFED can be classified as mutual-dependence when they are working towards procurement and distribution schemes and synergy when HAFED is working as a private for-profit entity with farmers and distribution marketing.
“[The] HAFED is [the largest] State procuring agenc[y] for[the] Procurement of Foodgrains for [the] Central Pool,….[it is a] central nodal agen[t] for procurement of Oil Seeds and Pulses under [the] Price Support Scheme (PSS) in the country…[a nodel agent ] under [the] Private Entrepreneur Godown (PEG) Scheme 2008… [the] Sole State Nodal Agency for arrangement and distribution [of] fertilizers through [their] Cooperative Network…[and has rewritten for the government] the Fertilizers Supply Policy w.e.f. 27.9.2013 keeping in view the longstanding demand of PACSs and CMSs for increase in distribution margin on sale of fertilizers for strengthening these Cooperative Institution engaged in the supply of fertilizers to the farmers in the rural areas” (HAFED, 2015) .
These are formal relationships; by working for and in the name of the government, the HAFED is directly impacting the various players in the production of rice and other agricultural products in Haryana. Writing rules and regulations directly impacts producers of the fertilizers the HAFED purchases as well as the farmers who then purchase and use those fertilizers. The formal relationship as a distribution center for the State means that it has the ability to collect and pool resources from across the region, which provides the HAFED with an informal power amongst the community as the place where their food comes from.
There are also other informal power relationships. For example, if, as the primary procurement and distribution center of inputs in the region, the HAFED decides it does not agree with, or has some problem with, a particular fertilizer company, or if they decide to ban a farmer or village from selling through the HAFED, then those companies and/or farmers may go bankrupt. This informal power arrangement is most assuredly a one-sided-dependence power dynamic, because the farmer and the fertilizer company both need the HAFED, but the HAFED doesn’t necessarily need either of them.
Third-Sector (for-profit)-Formal and Informal: Role of Producer Companies
Producer Companies (PCs) are business entities who are independent of external influence from the State, but work with a mutually-dependant market relationships (they will only purchase what they can sell on the market) and work as a cooperative power relationship between the farmers/community and the PCs. They are market-oriented, cooperative companies that can help farmers buy and sell more effectively. Since they are independent corporate agencies, they are most suitable in affecting market power relationships (Mahajan, 2015). The function of cooperative PCs is not only for the pooling of produce but also for pooling of members’ capital. PCs aim to create member centrality, to replace informal relationships between farmers and intermediaries, into a formal relationship through a company structure in order to have stronger leveraging power. This way, a formal relationship is constructed where produce can be sold to the market bringing better farmer returns, due to the professional management of the value chain. This is an example of transformative power relations, through the development of new institutions. There is a socio-cultural power transition since there is a shift in the way farmers interact with community and market, as well as socio-technical governance change since this new formalized structure gives rise to a new market paradigm.
Position these arrangements in the Multi-Actor Perspective triangle
3. The type of arrangements and the impacts of these arrangements for the sustainable governance:
The State
The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) runs an Umbrella Program for the Natural Resource Management (UPNRM) to examine the viability of loans based on participatory and community oriented Natural Resource Management (NRM) business models with strong capacity building support. Screening of projects is based on principles that ensure the projects are pro-poor, environmentally sustainable, have community participation, practice good governance, and are integrated & needs-based.
This State run program helps create sustainability within the socio-cultural spectrum by granting micro-loans to farmers (State/Community) at a lower interest rate, which allows for farmers to invest in the farms and purchase better/more seed, technological products, and inputs. This reinvestment in the community makes the community more resilient and sustainable and allows for farmers to try new technologies and techniques (socio-technical).
Within the SRI spectrum, the techniques are considered “open-sourced,” another words, each participant/user of the method can see all the levels and edit it as necessary to be tailored to their individual needs. This has a built in stability and sustainability, which makes it a socio-technical paradigm of great importance. Regarding sustainability, it is desirable and likely that this growth of influence helps spread the usage of SRI domestically. What is unsure is the pace of spreading, regarding the existing barriers especially dependency and little space for maneuver.
The Third-Sector
Within the PCs, sustainability of governance shows-up within the payment/purchasing structure. Private Companies often organize Basmati rice growers to undertake more sustainable (resource efficient) and market-driven production through contract farming. It can transmit new farming methodologies (socio-technical) to farmers (Singh and Singh, 2014) and provide a benefit to the farmer through increased yields and ‘formal’ access to market, and to the company through gains as market exporters. An example of this would be ‘Agrocel,’ who organized the farmers into organic and fair trade associations for the certification of Basmati rice under a group contract farming program. As such, farmers could obtain a premium price and market for both organic and fair trade in a commodity that did not even have Minimum Support Price protection from the state.
In regards to influence over governance sustainability, the HAFED can be classified as a sustainable system, because it is a self-contained supply chain. It is the buyer of inputs and seed (which it sells to the farmers), it is the purchaser of raw product from those same farmers, owner (and in some instances operator) of the processing plants, retailer of the final product, marketer and distributor to overseas and domestic markets (HAFED, 2015) . This structure is exceedingly sustainable as it controls all aspects of the rice production except for the actual farming. The HAFED also handles other crops, which allows it to handle shocks in the rice market and stay in business. By being active in the creation and implementation of laws, procurement and distribution of community stores, and a Nodal agent of the government the HAFED becomes resilient.
One concern lies in the governance of the HAFED itself. The company has a Board of Directors (15 people, all men), a Management Team (17 people, all men), and employees. The relationships between the Board of Directors and its’ Management Team and Employees is one dimension within the actor relationships of governance, as HAFED is a major actor for farmers and distributors within the Haryana State, but also within the larger scope of Agriculture within their region. They are contributors to a new Agri-Leadership Summit and a promoter of socio-cultural events in their community like the Haryana Swarna Jayanti Celebrations. The lack of women within the levels of leadership within their organization is, however, a cause of concern and may lead to issues moving forward.
On the other side of the spectrum, a female, Vandana Shiva advocates against the patenting of seeds - something she has denoted as ‘biopiracy’ - as she believes this directly undermines the sovereignty and food security of her country. An example of her antagonistic power towards the corporate market is shown in 1998, her NGO Navdanya, started to campaign against the patent on Basmati rice by RiceTec, a US company. In 2001, this patent was revoked, which was a victory against the patenting of ‘life’. Indeed, if this patent was to have held power, Indian farmers would all of a sudden have had to pay royalties over their Basmati production, their main export variety. The antagonistic power wielded by Vandana Shiva and other NGOs towards the market and government sector form an important voice against the industrialization, centralization, and in general, globalization of the Indian food products as a commodity.
There are several indirect arrangements between Navdanya and the Indian Government through the education and mobilization of the Indian people, such as the ban on GMO food production. The ban, enforced by the government, could be seen as an extension of the NGO’s power onto the corporate sector (eg. Monsanto). NGOs influence and drum-up public opinion which has indirect effects on the policies framed by the government that have de-facto power over the working of the corporate sector. These (indirect) arrangements are an important force in favor of agroecology, localization of production, and food sovereignty; direct links to sustainable governance in rice production in India.
In conclusion, to be truly sustainable, all actors within the spectrum need to be aware of each other, cooperative, and flexible in their management techniques as they work towards food sovereignty. Without these understandings and awareness, then one side of the MAP would dominate, and we would find ourselves within the world of Old Soviet Russia- one actor, one market, no ability to adapt, evolve, or participate.
Bibliography
Bhandari, H. (2017). Structural Transformation. Dans L. Achoth, The Future Rice Strategy for India (pp. 107-135). London: Elsevier.
Gaiha, R. &. (2005, November). Foodgrain Surplaces, Yields and Prices in India. India. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/35752830.pdf
Gathorne-Hardy, A. (2016). System of Rice Intensification provides environmental and economic. Oxford: Elsevier.
HAFED. (2015, October 15). Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited. Retrieved from HAFED: http://www.hafed.gov.in/
Mahajan, V., 2015. Farmers’ producer companies: need for capital and capability to capture the value added. Access Development Services State of India’s Livelihoods Report 2014. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Navdanya. 2016. www.navdanya.org
Ploeg, J. D. (2014). Peasant-driven agricultural growth and. Journal of Peasant Studies, 999–1030.
Prasad, S. (2016). Innovating at the margins: the System of Rice Intensification in India and. Ecology and Society, 7.
Singh, S., 2014. Agribusiness franchising in India: experience and potential. IIMA WP No. 2014-12-09, IIM, Ahmedabad.
WWF. (2007). More Rice with less water.
No comments:
Post a Comment