Seducing the Scientists: what can grassroots innovators do?

There is worldwide indifference among the formal and institutional scientists about people’s knowledge and it ability to solve local problems. This indifference has only increased after short cut methods  of learning from people, such as RRA/PRA gained currency worldwide ( thanks to donor agencies and world bank) and gave an easy legitimacy to scientists that the could learn about people’s needs and knowledge in a few hours or days through  various rituals (  most of these were  irrelevant to the real concerns of knowledge rich –economically poor people). But that is not the only reason. The criteria people used to evaluate the technological choices, priorities and search for legitimacy in formal sector also created problems. I am not suggesting that local communities or innovators can solve all kinds of problems on their own. Millions of women who transplant paddy in a backbreaking posture in India and Africa continue to do it despite all the investments in agri-engineering or farm machinery research in public as well as private sector. So is the case with women tea leaf pickers, or users of wood stoves and numerous other activities employing workers inefficiently and with huge drudgery. But then what about the problems which have been solved by the grassroots innovators, even if not always optimally? Why cant these be validated ( so that formal financial and other institutions can support them), value added, taken up for on farm trial and if useful, demonstrated through formal extension programs?

Let me illustrate. One will find thousands of ideas and innovations and outstanding traditional knowledge practices at www.sristi.organd www.nifindia.org contributed by the local people. Recently I was asked to look intro the problem of farmers’ who had committed suicide in India. While  recommending establishment of Village Knowledge Management Systems, I pointed out a great tragedy that was confronting the children of those farmers who had committed suicides. I asked them whether they were told of any low cost or non-monetary technologies for reducing cost of controlling pest in cotton, since that is what had pushed their farther to leave hope of coming out of debt. The answer was loud and repeated NO. Ironically, farmers from another district of Maharashtra which I visited, had shared a traditional practice ( also found in many other parts of India) that lady’s finger as border crop would acted as trap crop. It belongs to the same family as cotton and flowers earlier than cotton. How many experiments have been done to prove it wrong, if that is so either in India or Africa or central or west asia? Another farmer, Indu Bhai barot of Gujarat read in Honey Bee newsletter about use of jaggery solution sprayed on cotton to attract black ants. He tried it in 1999 (Honey Bee, 10(4):11, 1999) and found it very effective. The ants controlled the pest. He did not have to spray pesticide. By now this should have been tried widely. It was not. What would be the cost of failure, hardly any, if tried on small scale?

What can we do? Innovators will have to strengthen their own people to people network so that they can diffuse it their own knowledge network. Every body likes success. Scientists will follow good examples when found at large scale, HMT variety of paddy developed by a small dalit farmer, Dada khobragade diffused widely in five states. Once it started becoming popular, the scientists under the pressure of local politicians approved it  of course without giving much credit to farmer breeder) and made it eligible to be supported through cooperative and other financial institution.

There are well meaning scientists who should be recognsied for paying attention to farmers’ knowledge.

We also need to work at global platforms and shame the CG and other systems for neglecting such technologies. What else?

a shorter version appearing in ILEA

Anil K Gupta